-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
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: add EIP-4844 transaction when auto-mining #398
Conversation
…rary related typing to hardhat-core
…ransaction for linking libraries
…on & library related typing to hardhat-core" This reverts commit 18740ec.
* removed "export" from throwers, * removed "throwOnInvalidLibrariesAddress" thrower, * merged address resolution into primary for loop,
…nking issues/4652: added support for library linking in `hardhat-viem`
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Very incomplete review, but so far it looks good to me. I also compared it with geth's behavior (e.g., how the excess blob gas and blob base fee are computed) and seems perfect.
I'll try to give it another look, but feel free to merge after Agost's approval. Also: if there's something else you would like me to double-check against geth, let me know.
crates/edr_provider/tests/fixtures/blob_hash_opcode_contract.txt
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Franco Victorio <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Franco Victorio <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks, LGTM!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Tbh something I don't quite like is that the same error is shown for eth_call
and eth_estimateGas
, which might be confusing for users. In this particular case I don't mind a lot, since it's a somewhat niche use case, but AFAICT this is also the case for other validations. We might want to improve this in the future, but it's fine for now.
Also: I fixed a merge conflict. I think it's pretty straightforward, but take a look just in case.
Closes #341