explicitly refer to phase0.{Attestation,TrustedAttestation} rather than sans module name #6214
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…an sans module name
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No semantic changes, deliberately so since it spams lots of single-line changes across 30 files.
Follow-up to #6207
https://notes.ethereum.org/@ethpandaops/pectra-devnet-0 requires https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7549 which creates a second
Attestationtype in Electra and later. Without this PR, introducing this secondAttestationtype would immediately trigger theambiguous typecascade, which this triggers in a safe, controlled way first, before making any nontrivial changes.For example, because of nim-lang/Nim#23510 it's possible in general for such ambiguities in generic functions not to be detected, but to be automatically resolved to an essentially arbitrary type determined by import order. Diagnosing this on top of, and potentially reverting/reapplying a PR of this sort, would be disruptive and risky.
Therefore, split out this noisy no-op of a PR, and build on top of it.