fix: use normal getter for chain tree#2060
Merged
StanislavBreadless merged 2 commits intodraft-v31from Mar 2, 2026
Merged
Conversation
perekopskiy
requested review from
StanislavBreadless,
kelemeno and
vladbochok
as code owners
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 36daeffc8f
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
| /// @dev On L1, these are empty leaves and are populated only during the addition of the chain | ||
| /// are not updated thereafter. | ||
| mapping(uint256 chainId => DynamicIncrementalMerkle.Bytes32PushTree tree) public chainTree; | ||
| mapping(uint256 chainId => DynamicIncrementalMerkle.Bytes32PushTree tree) internal chainTree; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
chainTree(uint256) ABI on MessageRoot upgrades
Changing chainTree from public to internal removes the previously exposed selector chainTree(uint256) (0x2c3addb8) from MessageRootBase and its inheritors, so any existing indexer, script, or contract integration still calling that selector will start reverting immediately after the upgrade. Adding getChainTree(uint256) introduces a new API but does not maintain backward compatibility for already-deployed consumers.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It was added only to v31 which is not finalized, so it's okay
0xValera
approved these changes
Mar 2, 2026
Contributor
|
Coverage after merging normal-getter-for-chain-tree-draft-v31 into draft-v31 will be
Coverage Report
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
3 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.
What ❔
use normal getter for chain tree
Why ❔
auto-generated public mapping getter doesn't return struct's arrays
Checklist