refactor(tests-types): Refactor test types, always validating t8n BAL if present #1742
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
fselmo
added
C-bug
fselmo
force-pushed
the
fix/block-access-list-validation
branch
3 times, most recently
from
5d1606d to
640348d
Compare
4 tasks
fselmo
force-pushed
the
eips/amsterdam/eip-7928
branch
from
70a7786 to
be41913
Compare
fselmo
force-pushed
the
fix/block-access-list-validation
branch
from
640348d to
b1d7cd9
Compare
fselmo
force-pushed
the
eips/amsterdam/eip-7928
branch
from
be41913 to
20db73a
Compare
fselmo
force-pushed
the
fix/block-access-list-validation
branch
from
b1d7cd9 to
5b3d50f
Compare
chetna-mittal
pushed a commit
to gnosischain/execution-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 8, 2025
* feat(zkevm): create pure ether transfer worst case * fix(tests): update iteration and transfer amount config * refactor: add iterator for the sender and receiver list * doc: update changelog * refactor(tests): simplify sender and receiver list generation * refactor(tests): streamline ether transfer case handling
fselmo
force-pushed
the
eips/amsterdam/eip-7928
branch
2 times, most recently
from
4388bef to
0395133
Compare
- Validate static checks on the t8n BAL if it exists - IF the expectation also exists, validate against the expectation Keep these checks separate as this helps validation now that we fill for all tests, regardless if they have an expectation or not.
fselmo
force-pushed
the
fix/block-access-list-validation
branch
from
5b3d50f to
874ab91
Compare
|
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## eips/amsterdam/eip-7928 #1742 +/- ##
========================================================
Coverage 82.67% 82.67%
========================================================
Files 797 797
Lines 47864 47864
Branches 4308 4308
========================================================
Hits 39571 39571
Misses 7807 7807
Partials 486 486
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
spencer-tb
approved these changes
Nov 13, 2025
Comment on lines
+719
to
+721
| # Always validate BAL structural integrity (ordering, duplicates) if present | ||
| if t8n_bal is not None: | ||
| t8n_bal.validate_structure() |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As far as I can tell this is the only new code and the rest is refactored?
Contributor
|
Feel free to merge from my end. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
🗒️ Description
We were writing tests specific to BALs but now that we turned on all tests, some of the ordering checks from the specs were not getting caught. We should separate the static validation checks on the t8n BAL coming from the specs (
BlockAccessList) from the validation that happens against a definedBlockAccessListExpectationin a BAL-specific test.This PR moves the ordering and validation checks for the t8n BAL over to that class, as it should've probably been from the start. This way we always perform this validation on the BAL coming from t8n and IF we also define an expectation we only validate against the expectation in this second step.
This correctly catches duplicate entries from this report while filling tests: https://discord.com/channels/595666850260713488/1434985857823146059/1434999311812530176
✅ Checklist
toxchecks to avoid unnecessary CI fails, see also Code Standards and Enabling Pre-commit Checks:uvx tox -e statictype(scope):.Cute Animal Picture