1559 JSON RPC Diff

[alita-moore]

(sorry about the bad commit name)
This..

• adds baseFee to the Block type
• removes gasPrice from Transaction type
• adds maxPriorityFeePerGas to Transaction type
• adds maxFeePerGas to Transaction type

[MicahZoltu]

Is there a type for UnsignedInteger256? This appears to be UnsignedInteger but is not constrained to 256-bits (implying that a 512-bit number is an acceptable value).

[alita-moore]

good point, I can add that. Although goes a little beyond the scope of 1559 changes. As I understand it this was copy pasted from ETC so I'll be doing some conditioning like you mention soon

[MicahZoltu]

We need to make it clear that it is not valid to have both gasPrice and maxPriorityFeePerGas and other similar combinations.

[timbeiko]

Thanks for doing this @alita-moore! We agreed to expose the EIPs' concepts with the following terms in #allcoredevs yesterday:
* baseFee -> baseFeePerGas
* maxPriorityFeePerGas -> priorityFeePerGas
* maxFeePerGas -> feeCapPerGas

Could you edit to use the updated terms? Also, perhaps we should explain in the description of each term which "spec term" it corresponds to. WDYT?

Thank you!

Edit: not relevant anymore, see #47 (comment)

[timbeiko]

@alita-moore sorry for the back and forth but as per this it seems there is still contention w.r.t. the specific naming. Let's wait and see before we make more changes. Sorry about the back and forth!

[timbeiko]

@alita-moore FYI we agreed on ACD this AM to use the terms from the EIP, so baseFeePerGas, maxFeePerGas, maxPriorityFeePerGas.

[MicahZoltu]

Would you mind splitting the spec changes from the spec rename? Sadly, GitHub doesn't seem to recognize this is a file rename so we can't see the "diff", which is valuable from a history standpoint.

I recommend doing the file move first, so that change history is easily traversed.

[holgerd77]

What is actually the reason for this renaming respectively is this really necessary? Will there be more specs in different formats in the future?

In case renaming is wanted short note that there is a link in the main README.md which then would also need an update.

[lightclient]

I agree, I don't really see a reason to change until there are more spec formats.

[alita-moore]

@holgerd77 the reason is because the OPEN-RPC vscode plugin uses the openrpc.json as a way to find the files to parse. It's not required of course, but it is helpful when making changes. Either way I have reverted the change

[timbeiko]

@alita-moore @lightclient @MicahZoltu is this OK to merge now?

[alita-moore]

@MicahZoltu just a heads I'm going to address your comment about the integer in a separate PR

[MicahZoltu]

If we are going to rename this (and I think @alita-moore's argument for renaming is quite reasonable) we should do it before this PR so history doesn't get confused by the rename.

[alita-moore]

@MicahZoltu i will be making significant changes to the structure of the spec. I thinks it's best to just do it after. There is no practical difference in my opinion

[lightclient]

looks correct to me

[lightclient]

Just caught an issue actually.