Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

common: configure kaustinen6 network #3355

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Apr 16, 2024
Merged

common: configure kaustinen6 network #3355

merged 5 commits into from
Apr 16, 2024

Conversation

g11tech
Copy link
Contributor

@g11tech g11tech commented Apr 11, 2024

followup of

test and fix issues against the next iteration of verkle kaustinen5 as a stateless client

How to run:

  1. clean the client datadir (/data/k6data) and start the client providing where to save payload of invalid blocks (/data/k6data/invalidblocks):
    npm run client:start:ts -- --ignoreStatelessInvalidExecs /data/k6data/invalidblocks --dataDir /data/k6data --network kaustinen6 --rpcEngine --rpcEngineAuth false --logLevel warn

the loglevel is kept warn so that only failures so unexpected warns/errors show up to reduce noise while syncing

  1. clean the lodestra quickstart datadir's lodestar folder (here k6data/lodestar and run the following:
    /setup.sh --dataDir k6data --network kaustinen6 --justCL
    to start lodestar

Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 11, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 86.09%. Comparing base (4be68d2) to head (3b8a578).
Report is 8 commits behind head on master.

❗ Current head 3b8a578 differs from pull request most recent head 1181fe4. Consider uploading reports for the commit 1181fe4 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

Flag Coverage Δ
block ?
blockchain ?
client ?
common ?
devp2p ?
evm ?
genesis ?
statemanager ?
trie ?
tx 85.70% <ø> (ø)
util ?
vm ?
wallet 87.25% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

balanceAddress,
0,
BALANCE_LEAF_KEY
)

gas += coldAccessGas
charge2929Gas = coldAccessGas === BIGINT_0
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is this check doing?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

2929 gas charges to be charged only if there is no "cold" access (so warm costs won't be charged even if warmed by accesslist)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So should the check be coldAccessGas > BIGINT_0 just for clarity? I'm assuming coldAccessGas can never be negative.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@g11tech g11tech Apr 16, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

charge 2929 gas, when its not cold w.r.t. access charges (not cold = access charge is zero)


let charge2929Gas = true
if (common.isActivatedEIP(6800)) {
// TODO: add check if toAddress is not a precompile
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should this TODO be resolved before we merge? Seems like a relatively simple check.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

need to do a precomiple check at lot many places, will do a followup PR for the same if thats ok

Copy link
Contributor

@acolytec3 acolytec3 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants