Closed tcoratger closed 1 month ago
Hi @tcoratger , Are you still in need of support for this issue? I'd be happy to help.
Hi @tcoratger , Are you still in need of support for this issue? I'd be happy to help.
@Villegas2003 Before you start working on it, I don't know if this proposal will be accepted, wdyt @mattsse ?
This issue is stale because it has been open for 21 days with no activity.
This issue was closed because it has been inactive for 7 days since being marked as stale.
Describe the feature
At the moment, in this file:
https://github.com/paradigmxyz/reth/blob/2a9fa4869e658ca89e050d0d985a7ccbfa360bfa/crates/consensus/common/src/validation.rs
we have a lot of header validation methods like this one:
https://github.com/paradigmxyz/reth/blob/2a9fa4869e658ca89e050d0d985a7ccbfa360bfa/crates/consensus/common/src/validation.rs#L14-L24
I have the impression that rather than keeping these methods here, it would make more sense to integrate them into the
SealedHeader
implementation with a specific error typeHeaderConsensusError
which would group together all possible errors when validating the sealed headers and which would then be passed transparently to theConsensusError
.This would make it possible to make the implementation more structural and to use:
for example.
Additional context
No response