feat: improve randomize_state field coverage for fork transition testing #4594
Conversation
richardgreg
force-pushed
the
feat/state-field-randomization-improvement
branch
from
a20cf1d to
a2b434a
Compare
|
@jtraglia, do you think it is necessary to populate the fields for previous forks? |
Yes, it would be valuable to do this. Please complete the TODO items you've stated in the functions. Sorry I just haven't had enough time to properly review your PR. Given that this change will affect lots tests for several forks, it will require a more extensive review. In the mean time, I've started the CI checks for this. I would like for @leolara to review it too. He's in charge of testing here. |
richardgreg
force-pushed
the
feat/state-field-randomization-improvement
branch
2 times, most recently
from
5c00326 to
537e0d0
Compare
|
Hi @leolara, what are your thoughts? |
|
|
||
| def _randomize_phase0_fields(spec, state): | ||
| """Set Phase0-specific fields to realistic non-default values.""" | ||
| if is_post_altair(spec): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@richardgreg I think this ìf` either should not be here or throw an exception. Like it should not be allowed to call this function in the phase that is not supposed to be used. I search our code base and there are no examples like this, I think.
What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You're right, Leo. It's a counterproductive measure
|
@richardgreg the reftests are failing in this branch: https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/actions/runs/18327061427/job/52193981595 |
richardgreg
force-pushed
the
feat/state-field-randomization-improvement
branch
2 times, most recently
from
741a30e to
1f7da1b
Compare
|
@richardgreg let me know if I should try to run the tests again |
* Add Electra churn field randomization * Add withdrawal field randomization for Capella+ forks * Add finality checkpoint randomization with safety checks * Add pending operations randomization * Randomize fields for all forks transitioning from phase0 to Electra
richardgreg
force-pushed
the
feat/state-field-randomization-improvement
branch
from
1f7da1b to
ca9f91e
Compare
@leolara sure. You can go ahead and do it. My branch is up-to-date and it generates the reftests locally. I'm hoping that will fix any conflict arising in the CI |
3 participants
feat: improve
randomize_statefield coverage for fork transition testingDescription
randomize_statefunction to populate beacon state fields with realistic non-default values during testing.bugs because 0 == 0 assertions still pass, as demonstrated in the issue description with the Teku client. By using realistic test values, missing field copies now cause test failures
randomize_statefield population now extended to all forksRelations
Fixes #4535
Co-authored by Claude