ethereumjs-monorepo
ethereumjs-monorepo copied to clipboard
Add EIP-7702 Examples
This PR adds example files for the EIP-7702 implementation, demonstrating how to create and enable EIP-7702 transactions in various scenarios. It includes basic enabling, ERC20 atomic operations, and a Uniswap integration example.
Codecov Report
:x: Patch coverage is 0% with 373 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
:white_check_mark: Project coverage is 79.03%. Comparing base (1f8f8c7) to head (b4ac203).
:warning: Report is 38 commits behind head on master.
Additional details and impacted files
| Flag | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| block | 84.33% <ø> (ø) |
|
| blockchain | 89.32% <ø> (ø) |
|
| client | 67.99% <ø> (ø) |
|
| common | 97.51% <ø> (ø) |
|
| devp2p | 86.78% <ø> (+0.53%) |
:arrow_up: |
| evm | 73.11% <ø> (ø) |
|
| mpt | 90.05% <ø> (+0.35%) |
:arrow_up: |
| statemanager | 69.06% <ø> (ø) |
|
| static | 99.11% <ø> (ø) |
|
| tx | 90.59% <ø> (ø) |
|
| util | 89.36% <ø> (ø) |
|
| vm | 48.97% <0.00%> (-6.53%) |
:arrow_down: |
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
:rocket: New features to boost your workflow:
- :snowflake: Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
- :package: JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.
Hi hi, great start on this! 🤩 The examples are not yet working (this is likely partly AI generated?), so the examples CI is misleading, showing green even on failed runs, see #4016 (discovered it here along, actually great side effect, totally unfortunate otherwise for our releases since this might hide some bugs 🙏).
So, examples are using e.g. VM.create(), this API does not exist any more. Can you have a closer look and make sure that the examples are compatible and run with latest master?
Hi @avdheshcharjan!
Thanks a lot for tacking this! Just a quick headsup that we have move some 7702-related helpers (e.g. authorizationLists) into the util package rather than the tx one in this PR: #4032 . This will allow more flexibility for future usage and fits our monorepo architecture better.
No follow-up, will close.