Missing early timestamp validation in RollkitEngineValidator method
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100
Research direction
Start by locating the RollkitEngineValidator method and reviewing why early timestamp validation is intentionally omitted for Rollkit-specific validation. Compare the proposed custom-header approach in the linked Tempo header.rs reference, then define how timestamp validation would be enabled and what successful validation should cover.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
From the audit there was a low priority issue related to
Missing early timestamp validation in RollkitEngineValidator method
This was done on purpose for rollkit specific validations.
If this wants to be supported we need a way of using a custom header. We can get inspired by something like github.com/tempoxyz/tempo/blob/f9f539a66815625961d38feb99b86dca2609e2f2/crates/primitives/src/header.rs#L30
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 8
- Forks
- 9
- Avg merge
- 3d 17h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 4
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from evstack/ev-reth
-
Difficulty 3/5 1-2 days Newbie friendliness 35/100
-
Difficulty 5/5 Over a week Newbie friendliness 25/100
-
Difficulty 5/5 Over a week Newbie friendliness 30/100
-
Difficulty 5/5 Over a week Newbie friendliness 25/100
Similar issues
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 84/100
Eynzof/Hermes-CN-Desktop#616 ·
-
bug rules
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
-
app bug
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 88/100
IronCoreLabs/ironcore-alloy#346 ·
-
good first issue
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 65/100