feat: add multi-nonce support

[giladchase]

commit-id:c822f343

---

This change is 

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.28%. Comparing base (7c08d83) to head (31a64e4).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #429      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   82.89%   83.28%   +0.38%     
==========================================
  Files          37       37              
  Lines        1719     1723       +4     
  Branches     1719     1723       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits         1425     1435      +10     
+ Misses        217      211       -6     
  Partials       77       77              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[ayeletstarkware]

Reviewed 1 of 2 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 1 of 2 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @elintul and @giladchase)

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool.rs line 120 at r2 (raw file):

}

fn is_queuable(tx_reference: TransactionReference, account: Account) -> bool {

why not name it something that is nonce-related?

Code quote:

is_queuable

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 23 at r2 (raw file):

/// Creates a valid input for mempool's `add_tx` with optional default values.
/// Usage:

Add the new usage here

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 42 at r2 (raw file):

        MempoolInput { tx, account }
    }};
    // Pattern for four arguments.

I think those lines are confusing

[elintul]

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 5 unresolved discussions (waiting on @giladchase)

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool.rs line 120 at r2 (raw file):

}

fn is_queuable(tx_reference: TransactionReference, account: Account) -> bool {

WDYT of a short method of TranasctionReference?

Suggestion:

is_eligible_for_sequencing

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 146 at r2 (raw file):

        add_tx_input!(tx_hash: 2, sender_address: "0x1", tx_nonce: 0_u8,account_nonce: 0_u8);

    let input_address_0_nonce_1 =

Suggestion:

        add_tx_input!(tx_hash: 1, sender_address: "0x0", tx_nonce: 0_u8, account_nonce: 0_u8);
    let input_address_1 =
        add_tx_input!(tx_hash: 2, sender_address: "0x1", tx_nonce: 0_u8,account_nonce: 0_u8);
    let input_address_0_nonce_1 =

[giladchase]

Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, 4 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ayeletstarkware and @elintul)

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool.rs line 120 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ayeletstarkware (Ayelet Zilber) wrote…

why not name it something that is nonce-related?

Cause it's an implementation detail --- if we decide too add anything to the queueability check, we'll have to change the function name? this is too fragile.

Also, is_queueable communicates the behavior, if it were something-with-nonce, the reader will have to translate it themselves into "this is a queuability check? because according to it they decide to insert or not", so might as well do that for them.

if they want to know the queueability internals they can step-in, but they might not, so no need to force it on them.

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool.rs line 120 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, elintul (Elin) wrote…

WDYT of a short method of TranasctionReference?

That means TransactionReference will have to be aware of Account? is that legit?

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 23 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ayeletstarkware (Ayelet Zilber) wrote…

Add the new usage here

Done.

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 42 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ayeletstarkware (Ayelet Zilber) wrote…

I think those lines are confusing

which lines?

[elintul]

Reviewed 1 of 2 files at r3, 1 of 1 files at r4, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 4 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ayeletstarkware and @giladchase)

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool.rs line 120 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, giladchase wrote…

That means TransactionReference will have to be aware of Account? is that legit?

Not sure, maybe later. 😬

[elintul]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r5, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 4 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ayeletstarkware and @giladchase)

[elintul]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r6, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 4 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ayeletstarkware and @giladchase)

[elintul]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ayeletstarkware)

[ayeletstarkware]

Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @giladchase)

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 42 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, giladchase wrote…

which lines?

"Pattern for x arguments."

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 47 at r6 (raw file):

/// Usage:
/// 1. add_tx_input!(tip: 1, tx_hash: 2, sender_address: 3_u8, tx_nonce: 4, account_nonce: 3)
/// 1. add_tx_input!(tx_hash: 2, sender_address: 3_u8, tx_nonce: 4, account_nonce: 3)

fix the counting

Code quote:

1

[giladchase]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ayeletstarkware and @elintul)

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 42 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ayeletstarkware (Ayelet Zilber) wrote…

"Pattern for x arguments."

@elintul asked for them 😬
Do you have a suggestion for something else?
I'd rather have some documentation over none, since macros are hard to read.

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 47 at r6 (raw file):

Previously, ayeletstarkware (Ayelet Zilber) wrote…

fix the counting

Just to be sure, you think it'd be more readable than keeping the numbering form the other cases?

[ayeletstarkware]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @elintul and @giladchase)

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 42 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, giladchase wrote…

@elintul asked for them 😬
Do you have a suggestion for something else?
I'd rather have some documentation over none, since macros are hard to read.

maybe "Pattern for tx_hash, sender_address... etc"?

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 47 at r6 (raw file):

Previously, giladchase wrote…

Just to be sure, you think it'd be more readable than keeping the numbering form the other cases?

fix to 1,2,3,4 instead of 1,1,2,3

[elintul]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ayeletstarkware and @giladchase)

[giladchase]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ayeletstarkware)

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 42 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ayeletstarkware (Ayelet Zilber) wrote…

maybe "Pattern for tx_hash, sender_address... etc"?

That's what i originally put there, but elin preferred the x arguments, can you talk to her about it plz so you can reach an agreement?

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 47 at r6 (raw file):

Previously, ayeletstarkware (Ayelet Zilber) wrote…

fix to 1,2,3,4 instead of 1,1,2,3

I don't follow 🤔 where is there a 1,1,2,3?

[ayeletstarkware]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @giladchase)

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 47 at r6 (raw file):

Previously, giladchase wrote…

I don't follow 🤔 where is there a 1,1,2,3?

/// 1. add_tx_input!(tip: 1, tx_hash: 2, sender_address: 3_u8, tx_nonce: 4, account_nonce: 3)
/// 1. add_tx_input!(tx_hash: 2, sender_address: 3_u8, tx_nonce: 4, account_nonce: 3)

[giladchase]

Reviewable status: 1 of 2 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ayeletstarkware and @elintul)

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 47 at r6 (raw file):

Previously, ayeletstarkware (Ayelet Zilber) wrote…

/// 1. add_tx_input!(tip: 1, tx_hash: 2, sender_address: 3_u8, tx_nonce: 4, account_nonce: 3)
/// 1. add_tx_input!(tx_hash: 2, sender_address: 3_u8, tx_nonce: 4, account_nonce: 3)

🤦 oh tnx

[ayeletstarkware]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r7, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @giladchase)

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 42 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, giladchase wrote…

That's what i originally put there, but elin preferred the x arguments, can you talk to her about it plz so you can reach an agreement?

sure

[ayeletstarkware]

Reviewed 1 of 2 files at r3.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @giladchase)

[elintul]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r7, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ayeletstarkware and @giladchase)

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 42 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ayeletstarkware (Ayelet Zilber) wrote…

sure

Let's not block on this though. 😬

[ayeletstarkware]

Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @giladchase)

[elintul]

Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @giladchase)