zerosnacks

Just a heads up - due to duplicate tickets we may have double assigned this task, if we end up having a PR for https://github.com/foundry-rs/foundry/issues/6860 by @leovct I'll make sure...

Given there already exists an `--optimism` flag could we check against the existence of it in `--hardfork `? This allows for further flexibility when other projects require custom hardforks See:...

Hi @ewoolsey this looks good! Pending reviews from others

Hi @krzkaczor thanks for your suggestion I noticed `anvil` currently does not support verbosity flags like the other binaries do, perhaps that would be a natural place to add these...

> Any learning materials about `reth-anvil` so i can dive deeper? is the plan to rewrite anvil to reuse parts of reth under the hood? Best to follow along in...

Hi @ChaituKReddy thanks for flagging this. Due to the AST transformation the `via-ir` pipeline performs this functionality is available as-is as stated. That said I think it is important that...

> @zerosnacks does this mean that using Solidity "0.8.26" with via-ir and "forge coverage" will output invalid coverage report ? I am getting some unexpected behaviour when running "forge coverage...

> > cc @grandizzy > > In general compiler optimizations should not be used at all for coverage for various reasons. There are no plans to support via-ir. We provide...

> That is unfortunately a `via-ir` only feature therefore not compatible with `forge coverage`, ref: https://soliditylang.org/blog/2024/05/21/solidity-0.8.26-release-announcement/ Update: `0.8.27` adds support for custom errors in require to the legacy pipeline: https://soliditylang.org/blog/2024/09/04/solidity-0.8.27-release-announcement/

Supportive, also on this note >I think that the behavior of this exclusion functionality should mimic that of [excludeContract](https://github.com/foundry-rs/forge-std/blob/73d44ec7d124e3831bc5f832267889ffb6f9bc3f/src/StdInvariant.sol#L26-L28) in StdInvariant.