-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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
feat(eth): add remaining eth protocol message types #82
Conversation
6c54310
to
5e3743e
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
awesome, this looks pretty good,
since this is PR is a bit large, I suggest we merge al changes to primitves
separately, perhaps even 1 PR for Signature, 1 PR remaining changes to primitives
8fe6205
to
6303e80
Compare
* encoding / decoding still todo
* also add Hash to more types
* TODO: refactor tests and make tests pass
6303e80
to
4626fdf
Compare
* do not hash the entire buffer
* apply a clippy fix
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
overall, love this. @Rjected final comments and you can merge
/// The current total difficulty. | ||
pub td: U128, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What is this value post merge?Did anything change in how p2p works?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
these messages (NewBlock
) shouldn't be broadcast post-merge
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Got it - let's consider feature gating them later on if we think that's right.
/// This message was removed in `eth/67`, only clients running `eth/66` or earlier will respond to | ||
/// this message. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we implement both? If we don't do eth/66, then we should remove this request right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, if we don't do eth/66 then we should remove these. I'm open minded to removing this message and supporting only eth/67. I'm not sure if clients that implement eth/66 even use this message either.
* use partition in split_transaction_by_hashes instead of peekable
WIP