chore(consensus-types): fixed proposer index type

[abi87]

Just picked the right type alias

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features
  • Updated the BeaconBlock structure to improve the representation of the proposer index, enhancing clarity and accuracy in block proposals.
• Bug Fixes
  • Corrected the method signature for NewWithVersion to align with the new type for the proposer index, ensuring proper functionality.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The changes involve modifications to the BeaconBlock struct in the block.go file of the types package. The ProposerIndex field's type has been changed from math.Slot to math.ValidatorIndex, reflecting a new structure for representing the validator's index. Additionally, the method signature for NewWithVersion has been updated to accommodate this new type for the proposerIndex parameter. No other changes to the logic or control flow are included in this update.

Changes

File Path	Change Summary
mod/consensus-types/pkg/types/block.go	- Changed ProposerIndex type from math.Slot to math.ValidatorIndex in BeaconBlock struct. - Updated NewWithVersion method signature to use math.ValidatorIndex for proposerIndex.

Poem

In the land of blocks, where validators play,
A change was made on this fine day.
ProposerIndex now stands tall,
With a ValidatorIndex, answering the call.
Hopping along, we cheer and sing,
For clearer paths that these changes bring! 🐇✨

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between f767228 and 4b7b4d9.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• mod/consensus-types/pkg/types/block.go (1 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (1)

mod/consensus-types/pkg/types/block.go (1)

37-37: LGTM! Verify usage across the codebase.

The change from math.Slot to math.ValidatorIndex for the ProposerIndex field is correct and aligns with the PR objective. This more accurately represents the proposer as a validator index rather than a slot.

To ensure this change doesn't introduce any issues, please run the following script to check for any remaining usages of ProposerIndex as a math.Slot type:

This will help identify any places in the codebase where ProposerIndex might still be treated as a math.Slot, ensuring consistency with this change.

✅ Verification successful

Verified! No remaining usages of ProposerIndex as math.Slot were found in the codebase. The change to math.ValidatorIndex is consistent and does not introduce any issues.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any remaining usages of ProposerIndex as math.Slot

# Search for ProposerIndex being used as math.Slot
rg --type go -e 'ProposerIndex\s+math\.Slot' -e 'ProposerIndex:\s*math\.Slot'

# Search for function calls or assignments that might be passing a math.Slot to ProposerIndex
rg --type go -e 'ProposerIndex:\s*\w+\.Slot' -e 'ProposerIndex\s*=\s*\w+\.Slot'

Length of output: 161

---

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Comprehensive check for any usages of ProposerIndex as math.Slot

# Search for ProposerIndex being assigned or compared to math.Slot
rg --type go 'ProposerIndex\s*[:=]\s*math\.Slot'

# Search for function parameters where ProposerIndex is expected as math.Slot
rg --type go 'ProposerIndex\s*\([^)]*math\.Slot[^)]*\)'

# Search for struct initializations where ProposerIndex is set using math.Slot
rg --type go '{[^}]*ProposerIndex\s*:\s*math\.Slot[^}]*}'

Length of output: 286

---

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Comprehensive check for any usages of ProposerIndex as math.Slot

# Search for ProposerIndex being assigned or compared to math.Slot
rg --type go 'ProposerIndex\s*[:=]\s*math\.Slot'

# Search for function parameters where ProposerIndex is expected as math.Slot
rg --type go 'ProposerIndex\s*\([^)]*math\.Slot[^)]*\)'

# Search for struct initializations where ProposerIndex is set using math.Slot
rg --type go '\{[^}]*ProposerIndex\s*:\s*math\.Slot[^}]*\}'

Length of output: 170

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 22.15%. Comparing base (f767228) to head (4b7b4d9).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2041   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   22.15%   22.15%           
=======================================
  Files         357      357           
  Lines       15987    15987           
  Branches       12       12           
=======================================
  Hits         3542     3542           
  Misses      12298    12298           
  Partials      147      147           

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
mod/consensus-types/pkg/types/block.go	92.72% <ø> (ø)