Fixes: #10814
This PR updates the following RPC methods according to EIP-1898
specs.
The following RPC methods are affected:
- eth_getBalance
- eth_getStorageAt
- eth_getTransactionCount
- eth_getCode
- eth_call
Note that eth_getBlockByNumber was not included in this list in
the spec although it seems it should be affected also?
Currently these methods all accept a blkParam string which can be
one of "latest", "earliest", "pending", or a block number (decimal
or hex). The spec enables caller to additionally specify a json
hash which can include the following fields:
- blockNumber EthUint64: A block number (decimal or hex) which is
similar to the original use of the blkParam string
- blockHash EthHash: The block hash
- requireCanonical bool) If true we should make sure the block is
in the canonical chain
Since the blkParam needs to support both being a number/string and
a json hash then this to properly work we need to introduce a new
struct with pointer fields to check if they exist. This is done
in the EthBlockParamByNumberOrHash struct which first tries to
unmarshal as a json hash (according to eip-1898) and then fallback
to unmarshal as string/number.
This migrates everything except the `go-car` librairy: https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/issues/218#issuecomment-1529922103
I didn't migrated everything in the previous release because all the boxo code wasn't compatible with the go-ipld-prime one due to a an in flight (/ aftermath) revert of github.com/ipfs/go-block-format. go-block-format has been unmigrated since slight bellow absolutely everything depends on it that would have required everything to be moved on boxo or everything to optin into using boxo which were all deal breakers for different groups.
This worked fine because lotus's codebase could live hapely on the first multirepo setup however boost is now trying to use boxo's code with lotus's (still on multirepo) setup: https://filecoinproject.slack.com/archives/C03AQ3QAUG1/p1685022344779649
The alternative would be for boost to write shim types which just forward calls and return with the different interface definitions.
Btw why is that an issue in the first place is because unlike what go's duck typing model suggest interfaces are not transparent https://github.com/golang/go/issues/58112, interfaces are strongly typed but they have implicit narrowing. The issue is if you return an interface from an interface Go does not have a function definition to insert the implicit conversion thus instead the type checker complains you are not returning the right type.
Stubbing types were reverted https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/issues/218#issuecomment-1478650351
Last time I only migrated `go-bitswap` to `boxo/bitswap` because of the security issues and because we never had the interface return an interface problem (we had concrete wrappers where the implicit conversion took place).
Previously, we'd use the current head if not otherwise specified, even
when the user specified a epoch. Now:
1. If the user specifies nothing, we use head head's epoch.
2. If the user specifies a tipset and no epoch, we use that tipset and
the epoch of that tipset.
3. If the user specifies an epoch and no tipset, use the tipset at that
epoch (based on the current head).
4. Finally, if the user species both, use both (allowing the
epoch/tipset to disagree).
Łukasz Magiera
Friðrik Ásmundsson
Łukasz Magiera
Shrenuj Bansal
Shrenuj Bansal
Phi
hannahhoward
Adin Schmahmann
Jorropo
Aayush Rajasekaran
mx
Steven Allen
huangxinheng@storswift.com
swift-mx