Skip to content

refactor(spec): use uint32 instead of uint64 for block access index#2730

Merged
fselmo merged 1 commit intoethereum:forks/amsterdamfrom
fselmo:refactor/use-uint32
Apr 20, 2026
Merged

refactor(spec): use uint32 instead of uint64 for block access index#2730
fselmo merged 1 commit intoethereum:forks/amsterdamfrom
fselmo:refactor/use-uint32

Conversation

@fselmo
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@fselmo fselmo commented Apr 20, 2026

🗒️ Description

As discussed in ACDT #78, move to using uint32 for block access index. Spec change for this is also coming.

compare to: #2713

  • All: Ran fast static checks to avoid unnecessary CI fails, see also Code Standards and Enabling Pre-commit Checks:
    just static
  • All: PR title adheres to the repo standard - it will be used as the squash commit message and should start type(scope):.
  • All: Considered updating the online docs in the ./docs/ directory.
  • All: Set appropriate labels for the changes (only maintainers can apply labels).

Cute Animal Picture

🐻‍❄️

@fselmo fselmo force-pushed the refactor/use-uint32 branch from 4757a3f to 4f69758 Compare April 20, 2026 15:03
@fselmo fselmo changed the title refactor: use uint32 isntead of uint64 for block access index refactor: use uint32 instead of uint64 for block access index Apr 20, 2026
@fselmo fselmo changed the title refactor: use uint32 instead of uint64 for block access index refactor(spec): use uint32 instead of uint64 for block access index Apr 20, 2026
@fselmo fselmo marked this pull request as ready for review April 20, 2026 15:04
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@spencer-tb spencer-tb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM! Sorry for the u64 change haha

@fselmo fselmo merged commit 97c13c1 into ethereum:forks/amsterdam Apr 20, 2026
16 checks passed
@fselmo fselmo deleted the refactor/use-uint32 branch April 20, 2026 15:12
@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov Bot commented Apr 20, 2026

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 86.26%. Comparing base (0345cf1) to head (4f69758).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on forks/amsterdam.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/ethereum/forks/amsterdam/block_access_lists.py 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##           forks/amsterdam    #2730   +/-   ##
================================================
  Coverage            86.26%   86.26%           
================================================
  Files                  599      599           
  Lines                37038    37038           
  Branches              3795     3795           
================================================
  Hits                 31949    31949           
  Misses                4525     4525           
  Partials               564      564           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 86.26% <0.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@fselmo
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

fselmo commented Apr 20, 2026

LGTM! Sorry for the u64 change haha

All good, this was just (re)decided 😄 ... this time on ACDT and was agreed upon. EIP change incoming.

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