Skip to content

docs: fix proof_getTransactionReceipt description#343

Open
peter941221 wants to merge 2 commits into
NethermindEth:mainfrom
peter941221:peter/fix-proof-gettransactionreceipt-docs
Open

docs: fix proof_getTransactionReceipt description#343
peter941221 wants to merge 2 commits into
NethermindEth:mainfrom
peter941221:peter/fix-proof-gettransactionreceipt-docs

Conversation

@peter941221
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@peter941221 peter941221 commented May 27, 2026

Fixes #339

This PR aligns the proof namespace docs with the current RPC contract in src/Nethermind/Nethermind.JsonRpc/Modules/Proof/IProofRpcModule.cs.

Failure mechanism:

  • proof_getTransactionReceipt was documented as if it behaved like eth_call and returned account/storage proofs.
  • proof_getTransactionByHash was also misdescribed as returning the result of eth_getTransactionReceipt.
  • Both sections documented blockHeader as unconditional even though it is gated by includeHeader.

Semantic change:

  • proof_getTransactionByHash now matches the implemented behavior: eth_getTransactionByHash data plus a transaction inclusion proof against transactionsRoot, with optional RLP block header.
  • proof_getTransactionReceipt now matches the implemented behavior: eth_getTransactionReceipt data plus transaction and receipt inclusion proofs against transactionsRoot and receiptsRoot, with optional RLP block header.
  • blockHeader is now documented as optional in both response sections.

Preserved invariant:

  • No runtime behavior changes; this is a docs-only correction to match the existing RPC interface metadata.

Testing:

  • npm run build

@peter941221 peter941221 marked this pull request as ready for review May 27, 2026 22:59
@peter941221 peter941221 requested a review from rubo as a code owner May 27, 2026 22:59
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Description of proof module doesn't match what we have in code

1 participant