fix(tests): stop test_tx_gas_limit opting into an inclusion-list variant - #3503
Draft
Marchhill wants to merge 1 commit into
Draft
fix(tests): stop test_tx_gas_limit opting into an inclusion-list variant#3503Marchhill wants to merge 1 commit into
Marchhill wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What
test_tx_gas_limitno longer opts into the inclusion-list variant.Why
The test pins the block gas limit to the smallest value that makes its point — the transaction asks for 21,001 and the block allows 21,000, so it is rejected for exceeding the allowance:
The inclusion-list variant moves that transaction out of the block, leaving an empty block that still carries the 21,000 gas limit. A block's access list may hold at most
block_gas_limit / 2000items, and the mandatory system-contract items alone exceed what 21,000 allows, so the variant asks forVALIDon a block no client can accept:25 mandatory items need a gas limit of at least 50,000, which is what
test_bal_gas_limit_boundaryestablishes — so the fixture contradicts a sibling test rather than expressing a client disagreement.The variant is unfillable-as-expected for any consumer, which is why it is currently carried as a known failure downstream rather than gating anything.
Why removing the marker rather than raising the limit
Raising both values (say 100,001 against 100,000) would keep the plain test's meaning and clear the floor, but it rewrites a long-standing frontier fixture for every fork to fix a variant that only exists on one, and the minimal pair is part of what the test documents.
No coverage is lost either way. The scenario the variant would have exercised — an inclusion-list transaction that cannot be included does not make the block non-compliant — is covered purpose-built by
test_block_with_failing_included_il_tx_is_validintests/bogota/eip7805_focil/, across nine scenarios.Verification
tests/frontier/validation/test_transaction.pycollects 14 tests unchanged, andruff check/ruff format --checkare clean.InclusionListVariantFixtureFormat.discard_fixture_format_by_marksdrops the variant when the marker is absent, so this removes the inclusion-list fixtures for this test and leaves its other formats untouched.I could not re-fill Bogota fixtures locally, so the error above is from the released
tests-focil-devnet@v0.2.0archive rather than from regenerated output.