rpc: add uncle_block_from_header impl and test
#1554
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
tcoratger
requested review from
DaniPopes,
gakonst,
mattsse,
onbjerg and
emhane
as code owners
mattsse
requested changes
Oct 24, 2024
crates/rpc-types-eth/src/block.rs
Outdated
Comment on lines
66
to
76
| size: Some(U256::from( | ||
| alloy_consensus::Block { | ||
| header, | ||
| body: alloy_consensus::BlockBody::<TxEnvelope> { | ||
| transactions: vec![], | ||
| ommers: vec![], | ||
| withdrawals: None, | ||
| }, | ||
| } | ||
| .length(), | ||
| )), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the size is also based on the entire block so we need to create the block first, then get it's size
There was a problem hiding this comment.
mattsse
approved these changes
Oct 24, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The goal here is similar to #1532
In reth we have:
https://github.com/paradigmxyz/reth/blob/2ae93682b4978bf80bf27c777334ead30d3e04f5/crates/rpc/rpc-types-compat/src/block.rs#L178-L192
And I have found myself several times in the situation where I was forced to go through the
reth-rpc-types-compatcrate just for this small conversion.Seems like more logical and smooth to have it directly in alloy since the target type is an alloy rpc type.
I did a test against reth implementation to check the results are the same