Restore pending_create_data_providers and fix EVM pending block issues #2368
+35
−1
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
shamil-gadelshin
added
the
skip-cargo-audit
13 tasks
open-junius
approved these changes
Jan 23, 2026
Contributor
open-junius
left a comment
open-junius
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks good to me. I tested it in local environment, querying with "pending" parameter is OK.
I tried the Foundry tool, the contract deployment is OK now.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR fixes Frontier "pending block" feature: eth_getBalance request for pending block, estimate gas feature, etc.
After merging the "NPOS" preparation PR (#1941), we united
create_inherent_data_providersandpending_create_data_providers(which produce different results - one slot difference for pending data provider), and chosepending_create_data_providersfor both aura consensus and frontier EthDeps parameter. Which, in turn, advanced our chain for one block slot in the future. The future slot is not an issue when a shift occurs every block, however, when we need to create a pending block (one slot in the future), we use the same slot, and our Aura consensus breaks with "slot must increase" assertion.This PR restores the correct inherent providers for both consensus cases (aura and frontier), it also adds providers for the future BABE consensus.
Relates to #2320
I tested it manually on local machine and a baedeker clone. This PR must be tested on the testnet before deployment because it changes the consensus logic.