EIP Editing Office Hour #114 (EIP + ERC)

Transcript

[music] Thank you.

>> [music] >> Asam.

Thank you. Uh welcome to EIP editing office hour meeting number 114. Today is uh September 29th and people can find agenda on Ethereum/PM issue number 29. Um today we are joined by editor Yohham. uh we are going to go over PRs which are related to ACD which are related to uh status change and some of the new draft proposals authors who have joined us here today.

If you have any particular question with respect to any particular PR, please feel free to drop it in the chat and we can take it um as it as we go. But y maybe we can get started with the item which are related to ACD hea. >> Yes let's uh let's do it. So this looks oh wait this is like 776. So we are moving it from stagnet to draft if my >> yes yes >> connection works. Let's see.

Well, I guess my my connection works, but maybe the GitHub is now not working. Let's open a new tab. Okay, great. All right, this Oh, it's a very old one. Okay, right. I see. Okay, I guess I missed this one. Why? Okay. So, as mentioned in the previous call, uh in the background, I also put an agent to work to uh if it finds anything. I also want to read this EIP because it seems like there are a lot of new changes. Um so, yeah, we have to we have to check

that before we resurrect this uh this EIP. Wait, where is here? Ah, okay. Wait. So, I just realized I

apparently I already reviewed this one. Okay. I already thought this looks familiar. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you already reviewed. I I believe he made some changes after your comment. And this is the Yes. >> Yeah. I see. I see. Okay. I should have seen Okay, that's good. I see. I see. something.

Okay, interesting. Let me see what the agent says. But I guess that's also good. All right. Now, if it's going to post a video, which I actually don't want. Stop. Okay. Yeah, this is this is good. Let's uh let's manage it. >> Awesome. >> All right. [sighs] Um the next one on agenda is quick action and we are joined by cyber century. He actually has two PRs. One is 952 and 1 9 42. So maybe we can start with 1952. The EIP actually the stagnant bot. Yes. 1952.

>> Yes. Okay. That's this one. >> Right. Okay. Let's see. Right. So, yeah. So, this clearly is a problem that we have to solve. Um, but [sighs]

let's see. I'm not sure if it is already included, but I'm wondering like if it was tested somewhere, could we have some screenshots to suggest that yes, it is working well and we can go ahead. >> Yeah, exactly. So this is uh because I would assume that this code should look let me first clear clear these um this that was on this yam just to uh jump on this one >> again on the the background when I

raised this uh Sam created pull request 916. Um, it it ran through and then it it errored. I'm just wondering if we flick off of this one and go back to the original pull request, the one that Sam created. Basically what I did was on the uh 1952 is I just fixed the errors that came up on the uh pull request 916. I'm just wondering what's the quickest way to push u the one that I created through or to to look to fix the one that Sam

created. >> Yes. Um okay. Okay. So the quickest way is so we like I can't approve I can't merge this right now because we need uh two approvals. Um the thing the question I have about this one is that uh okay so this is a reaction on faults of I guess an CI. So that's this these two faults. Did you just say that they were caused by this PR from from seven? So one 916. >> Yeah that's that's the one. Okay, let's see why.

Right. Okay, so indeed why did why did we not see that this is not working then? Um okay. Aha. Right. I see. Okay. Yeah. I mean this this looks like something Okay. Thanks. Thanks a lot for for for for doing this because uh yeah I see I'm not sure why we did not even catch or realize this in 916. Um okay the thing is that um I want to check this code um and I do not want to do that now because that will take up too much time of the office

hour. Um but what I will do is I will I will uh look at this tonight. I assume that this all looks fine. But the thing is that if I would approve this like right now then this could yeah I mean I will not approve code which I did not not read. Um so I will do that tonight and if it looks uh good then I will also ping like all other editors to to take a look at this uh and at least I think that that if I if I state that the code looks good that people can just approve it so we can can move forward because I mean these ESC is moving to stack then that's like an problem that we actually have to solve uh well one month ago

actually more than one month ago um so yeah thanks a lot for this one I will do that after this call slash tonight. >> Super. Thank you. >> Yes. Thank you. Thank you. >> And I suppose there is another PR by same author and the PR number is 1942. That's a proposal to draft. I don't know if it has been reviewed earlier. Uh then we can quickly go over that. >> 1942. I do not see it in this agenda. >> Actually, it [clears throat] is there but maybe it's on the new proposal section. Okay.

>> 1942. >> Yeah. Okay, >> It was um it was started um by Sam on the 20 25th of August, but I'm not sure if he um he committed the his questions. Um I recalled the questions from what I saw replaying the video back. So I made the changes and then um it sat there good to go again.

>> I see. Um so you were saying that this was reviewed by Sam on a previous meeting. So likely this meeting >> I believe it initially it was on the it was either the 25th or the 27th of August. That was the first one that it was actually on. >> Okay, I see. Okay, I guess we have to ping Sam uh because then likely has an an uh a pending review which he did not submit. U let me directly do that.

So this one. So um yeah what I will also do is yeah I will directly win my agent on on this one also and ping Sam if uh yes as a pending is >> super thank you >> thank you thank you the next one. [clears throat] Oh, >> let me wait when you're done. Do there is now.

>> Yes, sorry. Other things being sent. Um, all right. >> So, the next one is clear signing working group. I guess there is a comment left by Alex Farard that he he's looking for some you know progress on this particular yeah ERC if everything is all right if this can be merged. I believe there there are some dependency on this particular ERC. >> I see uh it seems that I did not look at this one yet. And yeah, I will run my agent in the background on it.

There she is. Okay. Yes. Okay. Uh, that's a background because I see that Sam has some comments. I'm not sure.

Okay. Okay. Well, it at least seems that there are some items which are not addressed from sensor review. Um, but I will also win my agent in the background. Okay. All right, moving next is contributing MD. It was appeared by me. Uh I believe it also requires two editors approval here and I have added the changes that I have done to the contributing MD.

>> Okay, let's let's take a look. All right. Ah that's okay.

It basically contains three major changes. Uh arrangement of dos and don'ts. Earlier it was mixed up. So just provided separate thing added instruction for EIP numbering because we have received I I guess more than one incidents where authors are assigning EIP number to themselves. And the third one is the policy that was decided in one of the EIPAIP meeting that if there is any active EIP it would not be force merged unless an author approves that. >> Right. Okay. Uh so so yeah that so with this I completely agree. Let me think about this because uh

yeah okay this yeah okay I mean this is this is indeed this is fine like I remember discussing this but I guess this is for now yeah somewhat implicit that you as editor don't merge anything without of approval but yeah it's a I mean in contributing that's that's fine. Yeah. Okay. Let's uh let's merge this thing or well I think it will not get merged because we likely need to but uh yeah >> yeah it will require two editors approval.

>> All right. Uh with that we can perhaps move on to review queue. Uh there are bunch of EIPs and ERC's waiting to move into final and last call. So first three are the final one. Maybe we can start from there. >> Yes. Okay. Let me not open three tabs at the same time. Okay. So, right. Okay. Ah, smart quotes. Um, okay. It's fine. All

right. This is a table change. Okay. How does it look? All right. Okay.

Okay. This looks fine. Uh, this has passed. So codes. Okay.

All right. Right. Right. Right. Yeah. So I am going to ask if we can have like a solidity version somewhere because that's Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> And moreover, this seems to have more corrections that should go in the final one. >> Sorry. >> So, generally it is recommended that if you are moving a proposal to final, there should not be many changes included in the same PR. It's better to have the final one with all concerns addressed and just status change.

>> Yes. Yeah. I I I agree with that. But for this uh this PR uh so I explicitly checked these changes >> and the fixes in here. It does not change the spec at all. This uh this thing is caused by rci. So it it bends these smart quotes. So this is basically cost from our site and this is an fix for the table. So this is like this table has it's on two columns and here the formatting is wrong. So they added like an extra row to this. So this is uh where we can see that here. So you can see that the table is being rendered incorrectly >> and that that has been has been fixed.

Yeah. So I think for that that is fine. I mean like process wise yeah it should maybe be it should obviously be like two PRs but I think like >> no that's all right. I mean there is no hard and fast rule of that. It is generally easier but if it is like verified and you are able to pass it through it should >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah, I will just ask for the for the solid uh uh brightness. All right, let's move

to the next one. Yes. Okay. So, Do we have like u because I I I think we

have this somewhere in in like a contributing f or maybe something else but that we want like these solidity pragma versions uh here. Yeah. Yeah. I think it is in contributing MD. >> Okay. Cool. Cool. Yeah. lights.

Let's see. Okay, let's first move to this other one because my agent is finished. And then the background, it can also run on this one because I think yeah, we can't we can't touch this one yet, but also because of some other problems. So, let's see what it states.

Yes. Keywords. Yeah, just me.

okay. Can is it RC? Right. Okay. That's

what Okay. Well, uh I will not read the entire ESC here, but what I will do is I will indeed Wait, what's what's Cool. Cool. Um, so this one also has my

agents running in Pragma, but this at least has as the Pragma thing. Um, I can obviously >> it is in the do section for authors on contributing. MDA. >> Okay, cool. Cool. That's that's nice. Um, okay. So this one was in the background. Then I can do go to this >> Yeah. The last final one. >> Okay.

Ready? This

All right. Some stealth changes. This one. So, my agent is don't want this one. Oh, it is only one item. That's a bit weird, I think. What did we do here? All right. Yeah, that's fine. Well, let's actually check it because I think I have a problem. This was this interface, right?

Okay. Um, yeah. I don't have don't want this item. Yeah. Okay, that's fine. Let's This one is now.

Okay. Last call. >> So, we have six last call PRs and they all were added by David and team. David is on the call with us here today in case >> Hey, hey, Davids. >> Hey. So, all these have been discussed on the magicians threads and we're just moving them. We'd like to move them to the last call. >> Mhm. Uh there were a couple of changes again where the llinter required us not to um there were some dependent um related uh prior art that we had to take off the links because of the they were at a

lower status. >> I see. Uh okay. So that's for instance like this EC 6065 which likely is not in last call or or something higher. >> Yeah, exactly. >> Yes, I see. I see. >> Um okay. But okay, let me check because um this stand what was this 60 6065.

So uh one of the things like uh moving to to last call is um likely. Yeah. Okay. So okay. So this is um yeah I will say this is somewhat problematic because uh now we have this real estate token in this document and >> I am not sure wait am I no um okay let me first check it yeah okay so you previously referenced it to this ESC 6065 so that says real

estate token but now now in this new document uh which you fixed uh or well you fix the CI but the problem is that you are now it is now unclear to what ESC you are pointing to u the thing is that if you want to move this ESC forward then uh this real estate token also has to move to uh to Lasco or to final um >> last time when we moved to last time we moved there was something else stuck and so this is what we were told to do was just kind of reference it vaguely.

>> Okay. Um okay in that case I will read this section. Ah, okay. I see. So, this section is this meant as like an historical reference to the work done in the past?

This was related just related um art >> I see >> to other things that may may apply to the kind of related items to this ERC. >> Mhm. >> Okay. But for the um does this section have to be uh in this ERC?

>> Strictly no. >> No. I think in in all of the ERC's in this family, we just wanted to highlight prior art. >> Yes. >> But it's not strictly required. No, by by no means. >> I see. I see. Okay. So the the thing the thing why I'm like somewhat struggling with this is that uh these references are now very vague and the uh the the alternative is to link them but you cannot do that because I also assume that that that this ERC is also >> uh was also referenced in the past but because of the uh DCI you could not not reference that.

>> Exactly. Um, and because these are so vague, I would Yeah, I would state that. Uh, yeah. Could you um remove these uh references, but you cannot >> Sure. >> Yeah. Okay. That that that that will be great. Yes. >> Okay. Yeah. It was unclear. I actually submitted a an issue before >> um that was answered along these lines because it's it's unclear when you submit something with prior art you want to be thorough but if they don't move with you then >> It's obviously hard because the llinter then complains.

Yes. Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. I think that that that that the reason um so what we want to do is all these final ERC's they should also depend on all the final ERC's >> and I can understand that you want like to have these kind of of sections into your ESC also for completeness. >> Yeah. Um but the thing is that in the future like if these uh these ESCs do not move forward then you are referencing something >> right >> um which is like a long time yeah a long time ago. The nice thing is that in the repository you can still look back into also the review version of this ERC or like the uh so we can still still see it.

>> So >> yeah so if you could remove this section then uh then we can move it to last call. One thing because also you want to move this to final like one thing I will not check that here but okay yeah I already see it. So for these interfaces we uh require that you add an pragma solidity version. So in the future it is clear what uh solidity version was used here to define this uh this document. Um and also one thing I always take is uh like there could be abbreviations which are very clear now but for inance like if you reference like a DEX somewhere then uh first specify the decentralized exchange uh and then within brackets DEX

that this is also future proof so that that's that's a recommendation because I will check that if you move them to the to final >> okay >> okay let's see because these are all Uh this okay yeah for this uh so for this >> yes it's it's the same thing >> um okay let's see let's see this okay I guess we can do this yeah for okay so for this whole set of ERC's um if you could check for all of them I will I I actually write this down

on one one of these so it is it's clear. Um let's see. It was six of them, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. All right. Yeah. So if you uh so just

for reference uh state this on this uh ERC >> um if you have applied uh these things then uh ping me on >> yeah just ping me on on them I guess and then uh I will I will look at this uh this again. Yeah. >> All right. Sounds good. I posted in the chat the um the issue I created previously that's now obviously closed, but you'll see Sam's response there. Generally, it's advice is either to make your prior art vague and generic or get those proposals to advanced statuses.

So, that's what we were trying to do was to make the prior art vague and generic. Maybe it wasn't vague and generic enough. >> Yeah. Okay. So um okay I cannot speak for Sam but what I think uh what what what he meant is that uh currently in in your ERC's you uh well it is rather clear from the diff what we what we see that you are uh pointing at this specific ERC. Um so I think what what what Sam meant is that uh this generic or this fake bio art is uh yeah how how do how do I explain this

um like >> too specific? >> Yes. So so this pointed to like a more two too specific uh uh yeah question. So like your this um okay let me go back to to your yeah it was this one. So like uh so this real estate token it is very clear that this references to ESC 6065. >> So the the thing is okay make it more generic or more vague like okay this has been tried in the past like I would say like essentially you will summarize this work >> um uh that this has done in the past. So it is clear from this document alone um that it is self-contained in the future.

Um of course the alternative is that a 6065 actually moves forward but uh I think you don't have control over that. So yeah. >> Yeah. Exactly. Okay. Sounds good. >> And also thanks for linking this issue by the way. Thanks. Thanks. >> No appreciate it. >> All right. one last for review. >> All right. So, this is a this is a big one. Okay. Let me >> Okay. If you want to take it uh like at a different time, it's perfectly all right. There's one small one that perhaps we can take which is of EAP1.

>> Yes, I will do that. I will also run my agent in the background. Wait, this is not Oh, all right. Okay, that's open in the background. Yes, EP1 related. >> Can you please refresh the agenda? I think I have added it the specific PR because there's only one. >> All right. It's this one.

>> It seems like there's duplicate mention of EST and EIP1. H >> this would definitely require two editors approval but yeah been there for a while. >> Yes. Let me see because if this is in EIP1 then right I am a bit confused because I ah wait we may be because we removed this thing from from

the EAP bot but we did not allow it for ESC or EIP1. Okay. Yeah, this uh let's let's merge this in. Oh, well, I can do that, but I can at least approve it. Yeah, actually find that's like I I recall that like these these

Ethereum tests being removed from EIP1, but that is a procedure and there should be like an alpha input for this, I believe. No, I'm not sure. Okay, I I I need to check this. I need to check this after this call. One, >> can you quickly check 9130? PR number 9130. Oh, it's open.

>> 9130. >> Yeah. On the EAP repo itself. It seems like uh this was also proposed in there, but that also did not move forward. Oh, wait. Am I Wait. I'm getting confused because I think this is somehow we should not merge.

>> I mean, it's all right. I just wanted to bring it to attention because this has been waiting for quite some time. We need to like figure out if this has to be merged or just leave a comment then we can close it. Oh wait I can of course check this. So the claim is that this is a duplicate. Um but I am now getting confused because I think we might have already >> but in that case shouldn't it give conflict?

>> Yeah that's that's a good point. So, I'm also confused why that did not happen. Oh, wait. What I thought we do is we go back one comment. Yes. Go here. Go here. Okay, I need to to look into this

because I believe this PR is not doing what it it says it does. Um, and I also want to figure out this issue where we removed we explicitly removed this repository. So, or this this URL. So, yeah. >> Let's see. Um, >> we have only three minutes left. I'm not sure if you will be in a position to finish up anything real quick, but >> No, I I think not. No. [laughter] >> All right. In that case, thank you so much for your time today and we will announce the next meeting hour date and time on the agenda. It could be the same, it could be a little different. We

are working on it. So dear listeners, please uh take a look at Ethereum/PMO for the next office hour. Thank you everyone for joining us here today.