feat(tests): add more 7928 test descriptions #1815
Open
+4
−0
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
mirgee
pushed a commit
to mirgee/execution-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 5, 2025
…1815) * chore(consume): add exponential retry logic for initial fcu in consume engine. * chore(docs): changelog.
fselmo
reviewed
Dec 8, 2025
| | `test_value_transfer_gas_calculation` | Ensure BAL correctly tracks OOG scenarios for CALL/CALLCODE/DELEGATECALL/STATICCALL (pre-Amsterdam test with BAL) | Nested calls with precise gas limits to test OOG behavior. For CALL with OOG: target account is read. For CALLCODE/DELEGATECALL/STATICCALL with OOG: target account **NOT** read (OOG before state access) | For CALL: target in BAL even with OOG. For CALLCODE/DELEGATECALL/STATICCALL: target **NOT** in BAL when OOG (state access deferred until after gas check) | ✅ Completed | | ||
| | `test_bal_7702_double_auth_reset_minimal` | Ensure BAL tracks multiple 7702 nonce increments but filters net-zero code change | Single transaction contains two EIP-7702 authorizations for `Alice`: (1) first auth sets delegation `0xef0100\|\|Oracle`, (2) second auth clears delegation back to empty. Transaction sends 10 wei to `Bob`. Two variants: (a) Self-funded: `Alice` is tx sender (one tx nonce bump + two auth bumps → nonce 0→3). (b) Sponsored: `Relayer` is tx sender (`Alice` only in auths → nonce 0→2 for `Alice`, plus one nonce bump for `Relayer`). | Variant (a): BAL **MUST** include `Alice` with `nonce_changes` 0→3. Variant (b): BAL **MUST** include `Alice` with `nonce_changes` 0→2 and `Relayer` with its own `nonce_changes`. For both variants, BAL **MUST NOT** include `code_changes` for `Alice` (net code is empty), **MUST** include `Bob` with `balance_changes` (receives 10 wei), and `Oracle` **MUST NOT** appear in BAL. | 🟡 Planned | | ||
| | `test_bal_selfdestruct_send_to_sender` | Ensure BAL tracks SELFDESTRUCT sending all funds back to the tx sender (no burn) | Pre-state: contract `C` exists from a prior transaction with non-empty code and balance = 100 wei. EOA `Alice` sends a transaction calling `C`. `C`’s code executes `SELFDESTRUCT(Alice)`. Under EIP-6780, because `C` was not created in this transaction, SELFDESTRUCT does not delete code or storage; it only transfers the entire 100 wei balance from `C` to `Alice`. Final post-state: `C` still exists with the same code and balance = 0; `Alice`’s balance increased by 100 wei (ignoring gas for this test). | BAL **MUST** include `Alice` with `nonce_changes` (tx sender) and `balance_changes` reflecting receipt of 100 wei, and **MUST** include `C` with `balance_changes` 100→0 and no `code_changes`. BAL **MUST NOT** include any other accounts. This test ensures SELFDESTRUCT-to-sender is modeled as a pure value transfer (no burn, no code deletion). | 🟡 Planned | | ||
| | `test_bal_selfdestruct_burn_balance` | Ensure BAL records ETH burn when a contract created in the same tx selfdestructs to itself | Pre-state: `Alice` sends a CREATE/CREATE2 transaction that deploys contract `D` with an initial endowment of 100 wei. In the same transaction, `D`’s runtime executes and calls `SELFDESTRUCT(D)` (beneficiary is its own address). Under EIP-6780, because `D` is created and selfdestructs in the same transaction and the target equals the caller, the 100 wei is **burned** (removed from total supply). Final post-state: `D` has balance = 0 and is considered destroyed per same-tx semantics. | BAL **MUST** include `D` with `balance_changes` 100→0 (burn) and may include `code_changes` indicating deletion if BAL models code removal; no other account **MUST** have `balance_changes` corresponding to this 100 wei, i.e. no recipient appears. `Alice` **MAY** appear only with `nonce_changes` and gas-related balance changes; the key assertion is that the 100 wei leaves `D` and is not credited to any other account. | 🟡 Planned | |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We just merged some more cases and I rebased here. I think that this test case covers this scenario here, what do you think?
fselmo
approved these changes
Dec 8, 2025
fselmo
force-pushed
the
eips/amsterdam/eip-7928
branch
2 times, most recently
from
ebc749e to
6044b67
Compare
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## eips/amsterdam/eip-7928 #1815 +/- ##
========================================================
Coverage 83.85% 83.85%
========================================================
Files 402 402
Lines 25105 25105
Branches 2287 2287
========================================================
Hits 21051 21051
Misses 3615 3615
Partials 439 439
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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 adds three new BAL edge-case tests covering 7702 multi-authorization behavior and the two distinct post-Cancún SELFDESTRUCT outcomes:
7702 Double Authorization Reset:
A single transaction includes two EIP-7702 authorizations for
Alice—first setting delegation code, then clearing it.BAL must reflect the correct nonce increments (self-funded: 0→3; sponsored: 0→2) and must not include any
code_changes, since the final code is empty.SELFDESTRUCT Sending Funds Back to Sender:
A pre-existing contract
CexecutesSELFDESTRUCT(Alice).Under EIP-6780,
Cremains intact (no code deletion) and all its balance is transferred toAlice.BAL must show
C’s balance going to zero andAlicereceiving the value.SELFDESTRUCT That Burns ETH (Created and Destroyed in Same Tx):
A contract
Dis created and, in the same transaction, executesSELFDESTRUCT(D).Per EIP-6780, the ETH is burned rather than transferred.
BAL must show
D’s balance reduced to zero with no beneficiary receiving the value.