✨ feat(tests): EIP-7928 SELFDESTRUCT test #2159

raxhvl · 2025-09-16T09:55:44Z

🗒️ Description

Test case effects of SELFDESTRUCT on EIP-7928.

cc: @nerolation bal_changes for the self-destructing contract is captured too.

Additional changes

Validate not just ordering but duplicate entries in the BAL coming from EELS / t8n
Restrict extra keys in the models used for BALs so we fail on unexpected kwargs used

✅ Checklist

All: Ran fast tox checks to avoid unnecessary CI fails, see also Code Standards and Enabling Pre-commit Checks:
```
uvx --with=tox-uv tox -e lint,typecheck,spellcheck,markdownlint
```
All: PR title adheres to the repo standard - it will be used as the squash commit message and should start type(scope):.
All: Set appropriate labels for the changes (only maintainers can apply labels).

fselmo

Lgtm overall, thanks for getting this in 👌🏼. I left some comments to think about but also, I don't expect selfdestruct tests to grow too large. I don't think these deserve their own file for this reason, please correct me if I'm wrong though. Perhaps we should move these into the positive (err... non-invalid) test cases for now instead of their own file. Thoughts?

tests/amsterdam/eip7928_block_level_access_lists/test_block_access_lists_self_destruct.py

raxhvl · 2025-09-22T17:50:06Z

re: creating a separate file for this test

This is purely done to avoid conflicts while I work on these PRs in parallel (I have done the same in other PRs too). Once all PRs are merged, we could group them. Let me know if you want me to move them now.

fselmo · 2025-09-22T18:12:58Z

This is purely done to avoid conflicts while I work on these PRs in parallel (I have done the same in other PRs too). Once all PRs are merged, we could group them. Let me know if you want me to move them now.

Oh I see. I wouldn't think it's difficult to rebase if these are standalone cases. It would be better to PR them to the appropriate place, but if that's messy I suppose that's fine. Don't let this be a blocker at all.

raxhvl · 2025-09-23T14:49:45Z

Just so you are in the loop @fselmo

Self destructs will now include an address with postNonce=0 and newCode=0x. The rationale is that setting post nonce to 0 is effectively an account reset operation, and no other operation except SELFDESTRUCT should be able to do it.

fselmo · 2025-09-23T15:20:16Z

@nerolation @raxhvl this should be updated in the EIP specifications, right? Anyone working on that?

nerolation · 2025-09-23T15:20:57Z

Yeah on it!

fselmo

LGTM! We should move the test into test_block_access_lists.py before merging since self destruct cases shouldn't need a standalone file. I also updated the eels resolutions to point to the latest specs commit for Toni's changes that were merged in.

tests/amsterdam/eip7928_block_level_access_lists/test_block_access_lists_self_destruct.py

nerolation · 2025-09-23T17:24:58Z

Will fix it - thanks!

src/ethereum_test_types/block_access_list/__init__.py

Co-authored-by: felipe <[email protected]>

…x_index

- Add a parametrized case for pre-funded selfdestruct account. In this case, the account was funded before the self-destruct, so we do record the balance post-state as being `0` since there is an actual balance change between pre-state and post-state. - The case where a same-transaction selfdestruct account was not pre-funded, there is no net balance change between pre-state and post-state so we don't record any balance change in the BAL.

fselmo · 2025-09-29T00:08:40Z

@raxhvl... @nerolation and I worked on self destruct back and forth some at the end of last week to get the specs ironed out and I added the specific case of the pre-funded self-destruct account where we want to record the balance change as 0 in the end. I cherry picked this here.

I also pointed to the latest commit in the spec for the resolver. All the tests are currently filling here now.

I think this is good to go? Let me know if we're missing anything 👀

raxhvl · 2025-09-29T09:38:29Z

Thanks @fselmo I made the following changes

parameterize pre_funded separately from self_destruct_in_same_tx to get better test coverage for both cases
Extend the self destruct bytecode to include storage operation (read and write)

@nerolation Here is the impact on specs

If the account has been prefunded before self destruct tx (sending ether to a create 2 tx before deploying it) then self destruct will include a balance_change -> 0

* Add more complex selfdestruct tests * Add tests for EIP-7928 around precompiles

fselmo · 2025-09-29T17:23:52Z

Depends on fselmo/execution-specs#13

I commented on the issue here, the tests here were not expecting the right things. This does fill appropriately now (fixed here. I think this PR is good to be merged.

spencer-tb

LGTM! Couple small comments. No blockers. Feel free to merge :D

src/ethereum_test_types/block_access_list/expectations.py

tests/amsterdam/eip7928_block_level_access_lists/test_cases.md

* ✨ feat(tests): EIP-7928 SELFDESTRUCT tests * feat: point to latest commit in BALs specs (resolver) * feat: Validate t8n BAL does not have duplicate entries for the same tx_index * 📄 docs: Changelog entry * chore: avoid extra fields in BAL classes, related to #2197 * Add tests for EIP-7928 around precompiles (doc) * fix(tests): Fix expectations for self-destruct tests --------- Co-authored-by: raxhvl <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: fselmo <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Toni Wahrstätter <[email protected]>

raxhvl added scope:tests Scope: Changes EL client test cases in `./tests` type:test Type: Add/refactor fw unit tests; no fw or el client test case changes labels Sep 16, 2025

raxhvl requested a review from fselmo September 16, 2025 09:56

raxhvl marked this pull request as ready for review September 16, 2025 09:56

raxhvl self-assigned this Sep 17, 2025

raxhvl force-pushed the feat/eip-7928/test-self-destruct branch 2 times, most recently from 73e22e4 to 296091d Compare September 19, 2025 09:20

fselmo reviewed Sep 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

fselmo force-pushed the feat/eip-7928/test-self-destruct branch from 296091d to a3c2f1f Compare September 22, 2025 16:33

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

nerolation mentioned this pull request Sep 23, 2025

fix self destruct in same transaction bug fselmo/execution-specs#8

Merged

fselmo approved these changes Sep 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

fselmo reviewed Sep 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

tests/amsterdam/eip7928_block_level_access_lists/test_block_access_lists_self_destruct.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

raxhvl commented Sep 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/ethereum_test_types/block_access_list/__init__.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

fselmo force-pushed the feat/eip-7928/test-self-destruct branch from 88370ff to 59b2dc7 Compare September 23, 2025 17:54

raxhvl and others added 15 commits September 28, 2025 18:05

♻️ refactor: Abstract bytecode

9cc5df1

nit

d156095

Co-authored-by: felipe <[email protected]>

🐞 fix: Post state

88024d2

🐞 fix: contract creation to use initcode

8a0f97e

feat: point to latest commit in BALs specs

da8d568

✨ feat: update nonce check

1250227

♻️ refactor: move to test_block_access_lists

80ec494

feat: Validate t8n BAL does not have duplicate entries for the same t…

656df69

…x_index

📄 docs: Changelog entry

27599f7

📄 docs: Changelog entry

a15735c

chore: point to latest specs commit

44b2d4b

chore: avoid extra fields in BAL classes, related to #2197

c4fb252

point to latest commit in specs

b6075f2

fix: rebase with upstream and fix lint

366e454

fselmo force-pushed the feat/eip-7928/test-self-destruct branch from 7a01039 to 366e454 Compare September 29, 2025 00:07

raxhvl added 2 commits September 29, 2025 11:44

✨ feat(tests): test_bal_self_destruct

f39106f

✨ feat(tests): test_bal_self_destruct

31cdd9b

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

Add more complex selfdestruct tests (#2207)

b290901

* Add more complex selfdestruct tests * Add tests for EIP-7928 around precompiles

fselmo force-pushed the feat/eip-7928/test-self-destruct branch from dae8940 to 81fcca4 Compare September 29, 2025 17:47

fix(tests): Fix expectations for self-destruct tests

ac1e471

fselmo force-pushed the feat/eip-7928/test-self-destruct branch from 81fcca4 to ac1e471 Compare September 29, 2025 17:53

spencer-tb approved these changes Sep 29, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/ethereum_test_types/block_access_list/expectations.py Show resolved Hide resolved

tests/amsterdam/eip7928_block_level_access_lists/test_cases.md Show resolved Hide resolved

fselmo merged commit 20c1b63 into main Sep 29, 2025
16 checks passed

fselmo deleted the feat/eip-7928/test-self-destruct branch September 29, 2025 18:27

✨ feat(tests): EIP-7928 SELFDESTRUCT test #2159

✨ feat(tests): EIP-7928 SELFDESTRUCT test #2159

Uh oh!

Conversation

raxhvl commented Sep 16, 2025 • edited by fselmo Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

🗒️ Description

Additional changes

✅ Checklist

Uh oh!

fselmo left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as resolved.

raxhvl commented Sep 22, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

fselmo commented Sep 22, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as resolved.

This comment was marked as resolved.

This comment was marked as resolved.

This comment was marked as resolved.

This comment was marked as resolved.

This comment was marked as resolved.

This comment was marked as resolved.

This comment was marked as resolved.

raxhvl commented Sep 23, 2025

Uh oh!

fselmo commented Sep 23, 2025

Uh oh!

nerolation commented Sep 23, 2025

Uh oh!

fselmo left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as resolved.

nerolation commented Sep 23, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

fselmo commented Sep 29, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

raxhvl commented Sep 29, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as resolved.

fselmo commented Sep 29, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

spencer-tb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

raxhvl commented Sep 16, 2025 •

edited by fselmo

Loading

fselmo left a comment •

edited

Loading

raxhvl commented Sep 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading

fselmo left a comment •

edited

Loading

fselmo commented Sep 29, 2025 •

edited

Loading

raxhvl commented Sep 29, 2025 •

edited

Loading

fselmo commented Sep 29, 2025 •

edited

Loading