Implement EIP-7892 BPO hardforks #7521

ethDreamer · 2025-05-26T21:04:41Z

Issue Addressed

pawanjay176

LGTM, just minor nits.
I think we should merge this asap for the devnet, given the spec is a bit in flux, I think its okay to merge this with the TODOs and iterate as the spec gets clearer.

pawanjay176 · 2025-05-26T23:07:07Z

consensus/types/src/chain_spec.rs

+        match self.fulu_fork_epoch {
+            Some(fulu_epoch) if epoch >= fulu_epoch => {
+                let mut max_blobs_per_block = self.max_blobs_per_block_electra;
+                let mut blob_schedule = self.blob_schedule.clone();


why not sort the chainspec blob_schedule at construction from the config instead of sorting it everytime on function call?

My concern was that the spec was constructed in multiple places and I want to ensure the blob schedule was always sorted. I've done that now by adding a wrapper BlobSchedule type. Let me know what you think :)

pawanjay176 · 2025-05-26T23:16:51Z

consensus/types/src/chain_spec.rs

+                let mut max_blobs_per_block = self.max_blobs_per_block_electra;
+                let mut blob_schedule = self.blob_schedule.clone();
+                blob_schedule.sort_by_key(|entry| entry.epoch);
+                for entry in blob_schedule {


Maybe we can do something like

let index = self.blob_schedule.partition_point(|entry| entry.epoch <= epoch); if index > 0 { max_blobs = self.blob_schedule[index - 1].max_blobs_per_block; }

I've updated the function to be implemented on the BlobSchedule. It's simpler now. Let me know what you think :)

consensus/types/src/chain_spec.rs

pawanjay176 · 2025-05-27T01:27:24Z

Tested this with the interop config in https://notes.ethereum.org/@ethpandaops/fusaka-devnet-0#Kurtosis-Interop-Conifg-Pre-devnet-testing

Let it run for 3 epochs which covered an increase and decrease in the blob count and it runs perfectly with the other clients. 🎉

pawanjay176

LGTM, the CI failures seem to be unrelated to this PR
cc @jimmygchen

jimmygchen · 2025-05-29T00:22:23Z

Nice one! thanks 🎉

mergify · 2025-05-29T01:05:34Z

This pull request has been removed from the queue for the following reason: checks failed.

The merge conditions cannot be satisfied due to failing checks:

☑️ test-suite-success

You can check the last failing draft PR here: #7531.

You may have to fix your CI before adding the pull request to the queue again.
If you update this pull request, to fix the CI, it will automatically be requeued once the queue conditions match again.
If you think this was a flaky issue instead, you can requeue the pull request, without updating it, by posting a @mergifyio requeue comment.

jimmygchen · 2025-05-29T01:53:47Z

LGTM, the CI failures seem to be unrelated to this PR cc @jimmygchen

Indeed, the RPC one has been fixed in #7522.
I created a PR for the AvailabilityCheckError::Unexpected failure here #7533.

jimmygchen · 2025-05-29T02:12:08Z

@mergify requeue

mergify · 2025-05-29T02:12:15Z

requeue

✅ The queue state of this pull request has been cleaned. It can be re-embarked automatically

mergify · 2025-05-29T03:31:18Z

This pull request has been removed from the queue for the following reason: checks failed.

The merge conditions cannot be satisfied due to failing checks:

☑️ test-suite-success

You can check the last failing draft PR here: #7535.

You may have to fix your CI before adding the pull request to the queue again.
If you update this pull request, to fix the CI, it will automatically be requeued once the queue conditions match again.
If you think this was a flaky issue instead, you can requeue the pull request, without updating it, by posting a @mergifyio requeue comment.

jimmygchen · 2025-05-29T04:31:25Z

Indeed, the RPC one has been fixed in #7522. I created a PR for the AvailabilityCheckError::Unexpected failure here #7533.

Ah it was actually not that (even though it revealed a real bug that triggers the same failure) - the test is actually failing 100% now in its current state, because the failing test expects a blob, but the random block generator didn't create a block with blobs.

jimmygchen · 2025-06-02T06:15:28Z

Indeed, the RPC one has been fixed in #7522. I created a PR for the AvailabilityCheckError::Unexpected failure here #7533.

Ah it was actually not that (even though it revealed a real bug that triggers the same failure) - the test is actually failing 100% now in its current state, because the failing test expects a blob, but the random block generator didn't create a block with blobs.

@ethDreamer I've added a setter method to the execution block generator to allow modifying blob generation behaviour on the fly.

Basically the test is failing because it expects blobs, but there's no blobs generated for the next block (passing before due to rng), and passing empty Vec<DataColumnSidecar> to DA checker would return an error. The fix ensures rig.next_blobs or rig.next_data_column is always non empty.

…7892

mergify · 2025-06-02T06:25:07Z

This pull request has been removed from the queue for the following reason: pull request manually updated.

The pull request #7521 has been manually updated.

If you want to requeue this pull request, you can post a @mergifyio requeue comment.

jimmygchen · 2025-06-02T06:26:10Z

@Mergifyio requeue

mergify · 2025-06-02T06:26:16Z

requeue

☑️ This pull request is already queued

Initial Commit of EIP-7892

71ae25f

ethDreamer requested a review from jxs as a code owner May 26, 2025 21:04

simplify max_blobs_per_block

fbdacc3

dapplion changed the title ~~Implement EIP-7892~~ Implement EIP-7892 BPO hardforks May 26, 2025

pawanjay176 approved these changes May 26, 2025

View reviewed changes

jimmygchen reviewed May 26, 2025

View reviewed changes

consensus/types/src/chain_spec.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

jimmygchen added waiting-on-author The reviewer has suggested changes and awaits thier implementation. fulu Required for the upcoming Fulu hard fork labels May 27, 2025

jimmygchen mentioned this pull request May 27, 2025

Update mergify to prevent incorrectly firing rule to update ready-for-review label #7525

Merged

Cleanup and Address Comments

36147d4

pawanjay176 approved these changes May 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

jimmygchen added ready-for-merge This PR is ready to merge. and removed waiting-on-author The reviewer has suggested changes and awaits thier implementation. labels May 29, 2025

mergify bot added a commit that referenced this pull request May 29, 2025

Merge of #7521

ca5d42a

mergify bot mentioned this pull request May 29, 2025

merge queue: embarking unstable (0ddf9a9) and #7521 together #7531

Closed

6 tasks

mergify bot added a commit that referenced this pull request May 29, 2025

Merge of #7521

34260cc

mergify bot mentioned this pull request May 29, 2025

merge queue: embarking unstable (4d21846) and #7521 together #7535

Closed

6 tasks

Merge branch 'unstable' into eip-7892

e831dc6

This comment was marked as duplicate.

Sign in to view

jimmygchen added waiting-on-author The reviewer has suggested changes and awaits thier implementation. and removed ready-for-merge This PR is ready to merge. labels May 29, 2025

Fix failing test due to missing blobs.

8be32c5

Merge branch 'unstable' into eip-7892

5b0b468

michaelsproul approved these changes Jun 2, 2025

View reviewed changes

jimmygchen added ready-for-merge This PR is ready to merge. and removed waiting-on-author The reviewer has suggested changes and awaits thier implementation. labels Jun 2, 2025

jimmygchen added 2 commits June 2, 2025 16:24

Fix builld

f2d2f70

Merge branch 'eip-7892' of github.com:ethDreamer/lighthouse into eip-…

2679608

…7892

mergify bot merged commit ae30480 into sigp:unstable Jun 2, 2025
31 checks passed

Implement EIP-7892 BPO hardforks #7521

Implement EIP-7892 BPO hardforks #7521

Uh oh!

Conversation

ethDreamer commented May 26, 2025 • edited by jimmygchen Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Issue Addressed

Uh oh!

pawanjay176 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pawanjay176 May 26, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ethDreamer May 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pawanjay176 May 26, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ethDreamer May 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

pawanjay176 commented May 27, 2025

Uh oh!

pawanjay176 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jimmygchen commented May 29, 2025

Uh oh!

mergify bot commented May 29, 2025

Uh oh!

jimmygchen commented May 29, 2025

Uh oh!

jimmygchen commented May 29, 2025

Uh oh!

mergify bot commented May 29, 2025

✅ The queue state of this pull request has been cleaned. It can be re-embarked automatically

Uh oh!

mergify bot commented May 29, 2025

Uh oh!

jimmygchen commented May 29, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as duplicate.

jimmygchen commented Jun 2, 2025

Uh oh!

mergify bot commented Jun 2, 2025

Uh oh!

jimmygchen commented Jun 2, 2025

Uh oh!

mergify bot commented Jun 2, 2025

☑️ This pull request is already queued

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ethDreamer commented May 26, 2025 •

edited by jimmygchen

Loading