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

feat(rpc): define traits for stateless APIs #13016

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

syjn99
Copy link
Contributor

@syjn99 syjn99 commented Nov 29, 2024

Part of #12766.

@syjn99 syjn99 changed the title feature: define traits for stateless APIs feat(rpc): define traits for stateless APIs Nov 29, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

please undo additional ;

Comment on lines +340 to +348
/// Post Prague payload handler
#[method(name = "executeStatelessPayloadV4")]
async fn execute_stateless_payload_v4(
&self,
payload: ExecutionPayloadV3,
versioned_hashes: Vec<B256>,
parent_beacon_block_root: B256,
execution_requests: Requests,
) -> RpcResult<PayloadStatus>;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this function no longer exists

Comment on lines +327 to +333
#[method(name = "executeStatelessPayloadV3")]
async fn execute_stateless_payload_v3(
&self,
payload: ExecutionPayloadV3,
versioned_hashes: Vec<B256>,
parent_beacon_block_root: B256,
) -> RpcResult<PayloadStatus>;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

how is this different from the existing payloadv3 function?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You're right, it is same as new_payload_vx methods rn. I have a question about the scope of this PR: It seems new structs need to be defined(as I mentioned at alloy#12766), so I planned to touch the function signature after those structs are ready(I'm happy to be assigned to that issue also).
Is there any good way to note that this method is not yet implemented? Or could you elaborate the scope more if I understood wrong?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants