feat: EIP-1898 block identifier support (blockHash) #4186
+789
−75
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
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: a1cf5ec The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 1 package
Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are. Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Adds EIP-1898 block identifier support (
blockHash/requireCanonical) for state‑reading actions (call,getBalance,getCode,getProof,getStorageAt,getTransactionCount), enabling deterministic state queries. Adds sharedformatBlockParametervalidation, updates types/docs, and adds tests.Refs #3165.
What parts require more attention from reviewers?
blockHashis provided (see alternatives below).getCode/getTransactionCountnow includesblockHash; please sanity‑check caching expectations.What other alternatives have you explored?
blockHashby resolvingblockNumberviaeth_getBlockByHash. Rejected: extra RPC/latency and undermines batching.deploylessmulticall forblockHash. Rejected: extra complexity for a narrow path.