You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We include both status and root fields in eth_getTransactionReceipt and eth_getBlockReceipts which is incorrect behaviour. EIP98 set root to 0x0/0x1 and then EIP658 further renamed root to status. We never computed root correctly anyway as we just set it to the same value as block_hash, unsure if there was ever any purpose in that (git history shows that this logic was present from the very first commit).
Some ETH tooling gets confused by this as both fields are never supposed to be present together. For example alloy rejects such receipts as having duplicate status.
I propose we drop root altogether to remove ambiguity.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
## What ❔
Transaction receipt `root` was replaced by `status` in
[EIP658](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-658.md).
Since we already return `status` there is no need in having `root` too.
Fixes#3188
## Why ❔
It is actively harmful as it confuses some ETH tooling that considers
having both `status` and `root` at the same time an invalid receipt.
## Checklist
<!-- Check your PR fulfills the following items. -->
<!-- For draft PRs check the boxes as you complete them. -->
- [ ] PR title corresponds to the body of PR (we generate changelog
entries from PRs).
- [ ] Tests for the changes have been added / updated.
- [ ] Documentation comments have been added / updated.
- [ ] Code has been formatted via `zkstack dev fmt` and `zkstack dev
lint`.
We include both
status
androot
fields ineth_getTransactionReceipt
andeth_getBlockReceipts
which is incorrect behaviour. EIP98 set root to 0x0/0x1 and then EIP658 further renamedroot
tostatus
. We never computedroot
correctly anyway as we just set it to the same value asblock_hash
, unsure if there was ever any purpose in that (git history shows that this logic was present from the very first commit).Some ETH tooling gets confused by this as both fields are never supposed to be present together. For example alloy rejects such receipts as having duplicate status.
I propose we drop
root
altogether to remove ambiguity.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: