test: fix broken spec tests for merkle proofs #8469
+47
−13
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Summary of ChangesHello @nazarhussain, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request focuses on enhancing the reliability and correctness of Merkle proof spec tests. It addresses issues related to integer precision during deserialization by introducing BigInt handling for large values and refines the test assertions for more thorough verification. Additionally, it improves documentation around Highlights
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request fixes broken Merkle proof spec tests by addressing issues with large integer deserialization. The approach involves conditionally replacing uint types with bigint for specific test cases that are known to exceed JavaScript's safe integer limit. The test logic is also updated to correctly calculate and verify Merkle proofs for different fork versions. My main feedback is to make the condition for using bigints more robust to improve test maintainability.
Comment on lines
20
to
22
| testCaseName.includes("random") || testCaseName.includes("max_blobs") || testCaseName.includes("multiple_blobs") | ||
| ? replaceUintTypeWithUintBigintType(sszTypesFor(fork).BeaconBlockBody) | ||
| : sszTypesFor(fork).BeaconBlockBody; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The condition for switching to bigint types relies on testCaseName.includes(...). This approach is a bit brittle and might lead to issues in the future:
- It could lead to false positives. For example, a test case named
not_randomwould matchincludes("random"). - If new test cases requiring
bigintare added with names that don't match these substrings, the tests will fail unexpectedly.
Consider making this check more robust. For example, you could use a Set of exact test suite names or more specific regular expressions to avoid ambiguity and make the test suite easier to maintain.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we have some future cases we will be aware of their failure can add those exact tests.
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## unstable #8469 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 52.22% 52.25% +0.03%
============================================
Files 853 852 -1
Lines 64898 64977 +79
Branches 4768 4771 +3
============================================
+ Hits 33893 33956 +63
- Misses 30935 30952 +17
+ Partials 70 69 -1 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Performance Report✔️ no performance regression detected Full benchmark results
|
nflaig
reviewed
Sep 25, 2025
Comment on lines
+23
to
+24
| ? replaceUintTypeWithUintBigintType(sszTypesFor(fork).BeaconBlockBody) | ||
| : sszTypesFor(fork).BeaconBlockBody; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
any reason why we can't always replace values?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We would change our types only for the cases we explicitly been aware of have issues with the tests.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I tend to think we should always replace uint values here. Reason is less code and less brittle as tests update. The comment is helpful still.
Comment on lines
26
to
27
| * If you are not fully sure about the limit of a certain value where you use this type, particularly | ||
| * types related to network interaction, then we would encourage to use `UintBn64` instead. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hmm, this doesnt read very convincing, using UintNum64 in the wrong place could lead to a consensus failure so we need to make sure ot not get this wrong
"you are not fully sure"
then research how the value is used and make sure to not get this wrong, I don't think encouraging use of UintBn64 is good (due to it's perf impact), we should only do it if it's necessary
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's what is been mentioned in here. That use UintBn64 when you are fully sure of the range of values. Having performance impact is not as crucial as consensus failure.
Feel free to suggest how you want to phrase it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would just remove the last paragraph
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's see what other feels about it.
wemeetagain
reviewed
Sep 29, 2025
Comment on lines
+23
to
+24
| ? replaceUintTypeWithUintBigintType(sszTypesFor(fork).BeaconBlockBody) | ||
| : sszTypesFor(fork).BeaconBlockBody; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I tend to think we should always replace uint values here. Reason is less code and less brittle as tests update. The comment is helpful still.
Co-authored-by: Cayman <[email protected]>
The question will pop up should we do it for So I think it's much easier to reason about and only do conditional replace for the individual test cases we found have such random data. |
This is what your added comment helps illuminate. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
Motivation
Make sure all specs passes.
Description
Closes #7839
Steps to test or reproduce
Run all tests