Part 3 of Restructuring BeaconBlock Proto - Remove Special Record #1067
Conversation
| // Specials consist of exist, penalities, etc. | ||
| repeated SpecialRecord specials = 7 [deprecated=true]; // Deprecated in favor of unify specials object w/ attestations. | ||
| repeated bytes proposer_signature = 8; // Type of [uint384]? | ||
| repeated bytes ancestor_hash32s = 2; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think 32s implies there is a multiple of ancestor hashes because repeated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No typo here. Hash32s is plural
proto/beacon/p2p/v1/types.proto
Outdated
|
|
||
| // Block Body | ||
| BeaconBlockBody body =79; |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1067 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 71.19% 71.19% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 76 76
Lines 4576 4575 -1
==========================================
- Hits 3258 3257 -1
Misses 1011 1011
Partials 307 307 |
| // Specials consist of exist, penalities, etc. | ||
| repeated SpecialRecord specials = 7 [deprecated=true]; // Deprecated in favor of unify specials object w/ attestations. | ||
| repeated bytes proposer_signature = 8; // Type of [uint384]? | ||
| repeated bytes ancestor_hash32s = 2; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No typo here. Hash32s is plural
proto/beacon/p2p/v1/types.proto
Outdated
| // Block Body | ||
| BeaconBlockBody body = 9; | ||
| BeaconBlockBody body = 1000; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why 1000? Do we expect a lot of fields in this message?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Probably not.. I'll change it back to 9
| repeated SpecialRecord specials = 7 [deprecated=true]; // Deprecated in favor of unify specials object w/ attestations. | ||
| repeated bytes signature = 8; // Type of [uint384]? | ||
| repeated bytes ancestor_hash32s = 2; | ||
| bytes state_root_hash32 = 3; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FYI, once we launch a v1, we can never change the IDs. It's OK for now though
I'll be sure to document this, but read this for your FYI.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks. Reading it now
Part of #781
This PR removes special record from beacon block