feat: add new fork block and precompile contract for BEP294 and BEP299#1874
Merged
unclezoro merged 4 commits intobnb-chain:bc-fusionfrom Nov 30, 2023
Merged
feat: add new fork block and precompile contract for BEP294 and BEP299#1874unclezoro merged 4 commits intobnb-chain:bc-fusionfrom
unclezoro merged 4 commits intobnb-chain:bc-fusionfrom
Conversation
unclezoro
reviewed
Sep 18, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Sep 18, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Sep 18, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Sep 18, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Sep 18, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Sep 18, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Sep 18, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Sep 18, 2023
44092f8 to
45110b8
Compare
639fe27 to
12214ef
Compare
12214ef to
1eea774
Compare
unclezoro
reviewed
Oct 31, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Oct 31, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Oct 31, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Oct 31, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Oct 31, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Oct 31, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Oct 31, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Oct 31, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Oct 31, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Oct 31, 2023
consensus/parlia/fusionfork.go
Outdated
| sort.SliceStable(validatorHeap, validatorHeap.Less) | ||
| } else { | ||
| i := 0 | ||
| for len(validatorHeap) < int(maxElectedValidators.Int64()) && i < len(allValidators) { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is complicated than I think.
Let's simplify it:
we get allVotingPowers slice, heap.init() it, then pop until 1. top maxElectedValidators, or 2. the heap is empty. Each pop item goes to eligibleValidators
unclezoro
reviewed
Oct 31, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Oct 31, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Oct 31, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Oct 31, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Oct 31, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Oct 31, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Nov 9, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Nov 9, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Nov 9, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Nov 9, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Nov 9, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Nov 9, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Nov 9, 2023
j75689
reviewed
Nov 10, 2023
buddh0
reviewed
Nov 20, 2023
buddh0
reviewed
Nov 20, 2023
b89b384 to
de2215f
Compare
de2215f to
5365b22
Compare
NathanBSC
reviewed
Nov 28, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Nov 30, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Nov 30, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Nov 30, 2023
unclezoro
reviewed
Nov 30, 2023
e3e7a3d to
285422e
Compare
unclezoro
approved these changes
Nov 30, 2023
Gabo139
approved these changes
Apr 23, 2024
ABDALLA10FATHY
approved these changes
Dec 2, 2024
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.
Description
This pr is to support
Rationale
See
4. Motivationin BEP-294, BEP-299,Changes
Notable changes:
verifyDoubleSignEvidenceandsecp256k1SignatureRecover