-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 989
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
More capella tests #3227
More capella tests #3227
Conversation
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.
nice!
yield 'blocks', [signed_block] | ||
yield 'post', state | ||
|
||
validator = state.validators[validator_index] |
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.
maybe write a comment that withdrawals happen before deposits so no partial withdrawal is made in the prior transition (just to make explicit)
state.validators[validator_index], state.balances[validator_index]) | ||
|
||
# Getting attester rewards and getting partial withdrawals | ||
for _ in range(2): |
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.
What is the 2 magic number? to go through all validators and thus partially withdraw this validator?
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.
I was thinking of 1 epoch for balance updates, 1 epoch for withdrawals + balance updates.
pre_tag, | ||
post_tag, | ||
operation_type=OperationType.BLS_TO_EXECUTION_CHANGE, | ||
operation_at_slot=fork_epoch * spec.SLOTS_PER_EPOCH - 1, |
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.
Shouldn't this fail because you can't include BLS_TO_EXECUTION_CHANGE operations before the fork?
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.
Ah good point, it should have been in eip4844 folder for testing capella
-> eip4844
fork transition.
Co-authored-by: Danny Ryan <[email protected]>
8e0bd44
to
a87f727
Compare
a87f727
to
9ab1478
Compare
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.
nice!
Add tests of mixing top-ups and withdrawals, rename old test case