Skip to content
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

Update EIP-7685: group requests into request-data #8924

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 7, 2024

Conversation

lightclient
Copy link
Member

Hopefully this encapsulates the discussion on discord and in #8916.

Essentially, we now refer to request_data as the opaque data output by the system contract instead of a request's individual fields and we modify the request_hash calculation to be the following:

sha256(sha256(0x00 || request_data_00) || sha256(0x01 || request_data_01) || ...)

@github-actions github-actions bot added c-update Modifies an existing proposal s-review This EIP is in Review t-core labels Oct 2, 2024
@eth-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

eth-bot commented Oct 2, 2024

✅ All reviewers have approved.

@eth-bot eth-bot changed the title 7685: group requests into request-data Update EIP-7685: group requests into request-data Oct 2, 2024
18211308

This comment was marked as spam.

@lightclient lightclient marked this pull request as ready for review October 7, 2024 12:22
Copy link
Contributor

@g11tech g11tech left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm

@eth-bot eth-bot enabled auto-merge (squash) October 7, 2024 14:31
Copy link
Collaborator

@eth-bot eth-bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All Reviewers Have Approved; Performing Automatic Merge...

@eth-bot eth-bot merged commit a360757 into ethereum:master Oct 7, 2024
17 checks passed
def compute_requests_hash(requests):
m = sha256()
for r in requests:
m.update(sha256(r))
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

According to the PR’s description, there is a type byte hashed in front of every list. In this particular case not having a “domain” byte is fine because the order already does this implicitly. Just want to confirm this algo in the spec is the one that it was intended to be

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

maybe not the clearest, but each r in requests is the prefixed data already

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
c-update Modifies an existing proposal s-review This EIP is in Review t-core
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants