Closed protolambda closed 3 days ago
While the explicit local/cross difference is nice, the safety-labels should just match the RPC labels for consistency.
Why not change the RPC labels for explicit local/cross, so that way they're consistent and fully qualified?
I've approved, but some test expectations aren't matching:
mock: Unexpected Method Call
-----------------------------
Emit(engine.PromoteSafeEvent)
0: engine.PromoteSafeEvent{Ref:eth.L2BlockRef{Hash:0xe7973076740a7c768f5583ea7207491f3ed19154eacb8fdd0a37567e0574a602, Number:0x739a77238d883876, ParentHash:0xf9a03dce23d3e099633bf1ca9ac8d0aad7586969195be733026758119801ed31, Time:0xb74eb752aba9d754, L1Origin:eth.BlockID{Hash:0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, Number:0x0}, SequenceNumber:0xb07331de8eabee7b}, DerivedFrom:eth.L1BlockRef{Hash:0x8ba9bdc82a6f09b8e0ec2076274673b42410c3af47d6a12187b850ffddc5eadd, Number:0x7a38aca9c395c34f, ParentHash:0x8aa813de57c92a8128804d56e80b332142b9d718d3b5e0dd26198e2da31b24f2, Time:0x86efd31d39c17ab1}}
The closest call I have is:
Emit(engine.RequestCrossUnsafeEvent)
0: engine.RequestCrossUnsafeEvent{}
Diff: 0: FAIL: (engine.PromoteSafeEvent=promote-safe) != (engine.RequestCrossUnsafeEvent=request-cross-unsafe) [recovered]
panic:
mock: Unexpected Method Call
-----------------------------
Description
This:
cross-finalized
/local-finalized
difference. Finality depends on cross-safe limited to a view of irreversible L1 blocks. Taking a combination of local-finalized chains is not the same. And having two levels of finality is confusing.