-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Avail:0:1st Proposal:Integration of Avail DA layer with Arbitrum nitro #6
Conversation
RISHABHAGRAWALZRA
commented
Apr 10, 2024
- Addition of Avail package with having store and retrieve logic in das
- Updation of nitro-contracts for support of avail header
- Addition of Avail in replay binary for fraud proving in the Arbitrator
feat: enable fraud proof, resolved validation error
nitro v2.1.3 -> nitro v2.2.5 + avail integration
…rification-v2.2.5
Arbitrum Nitro v2.3.1
LeafIndex uint64 `json:"leafIndex"` | ||
LeafProof []gsrpc_types.Hash `json:"leafProof"` | ||
RangeHash gsrpc_types.Hash `json:"rangeHash"` | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i have written a much cleaner version for this code in OP. Can you refer that and clean this file up a bit please.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Will cover this in my next pr
if err != nil { | ||
t.Fatalf("unable to unmarshal bridge api response, err=%v", err) | ||
} | ||
t.Logf("%+v", bridgdeApiResponse) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
can we do some abstraction here, barely understandable in its current state