cancun

[thedavidmeister]

Motivation

Solution

Checks

By submitting this for review, I'm confirming I've done the following:

• made this PR as small as possible
• unit-tested any new functionality
• linked any relevant issues or PRs
• included screenshots (if this involves a front-end change)

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Updated EVM version configuration for improved compatibility and performance.
  • Refreshed performance baseline metrics.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The PR updates the EVM version configuration from paris to cancun in foundry.toml and refreshes gas consumption metrics in .gas-snapshot with new benchmark values.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Configuration Update foundry.toml	Changed evm_version from "paris" to "cancun" for compilation and execution environment
Gas Snapshot Metrics .gas-snapshot	Updated performance benchmark metrics (runs, μ, ~) for existing test identifiers

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes

• Verify that EVM version upgrade to cancun is compatible with the project's dependencies and intended environment
• Confirm that updated gas metrics align with expected behavior changes from the EVM version upgrade

Possibly related PRs

• 2025 03 29 fix tests #65: Updates the same .gas-snapshot performance metrics for related tests.

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Title check	❓ Inconclusive	The title 'cancun' is vague and does not clearly communicate the main change; while it relates to the EVM version upgrade in foundry.toml, it lacks specificity about what is being changed.	Consider a more descriptive title like 'Upgrade EVM version from paris to cancun' that clearly indicates the nature and scope of the change.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch 2025-12-01-deps

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 0fc7d0f and 99f4c10.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• .gas-snapshot (1 hunks)
• foundry.toml (1 hunks)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (8)

• GitHub Check: test
• GitHub Check: standard-tests (ubuntu-latest, rainix-rs-static)
• GitHub Check: standard-tests (ubuntu-latest, rainix-sol-artifacts)
• GitHub Check: standard-tests (ubuntu-latest, rainix-rs-artifacts)
• GitHub Check: standard-tests (ubuntu-latest, rainix-rs-test)
• GitHub Check: standard-tests (ubuntu-latest, rainix-sol-static)
• GitHub Check: standard-tests (macos-latest, rainix-rs-test)
• GitHub Check: standard-tests (ubuntu-latest, rainix-sol-test)

🔇 Additional comments (2)

.gas-snapshot (1)

1-10: Verify gas snapshot was regenerated with Cancun.

The gas snapshot metrics have been updated across all tests. Confirm that these values were generated by running forge test --gas-report (or equivalent) with the Cancun EVM version to ensure the benchmarks reflect actual gas consumption under the new configuration.

foundry.toml (1)

8-8: Ensure target chain supports Cancun EVM activation.

Solidity 0.8.25 defaults to and fully supports Cancun, generating bytecode with new opcodes like MCOPY. Before deploying contracts compiled with evm_version = "cancun", confirm that your target chain (mainnet, testnet, or L2) has activated the Dencun/Cancun EIPs. Deployment will fail on chains that haven't upgraded to Cancun.

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[github-actions]

@coderabbitai assess this PR size classification for the totality of the PR with the following criterias and report it in your comment:

S/M/L PR Classification Guidelines:

This guide helps classify merged pull requests by effort and complexity rather than just line count. The goal is to assess the difficulty and scope of changes after they have been completed.

Small (S)

Characteristics:

• Simple bug fixes, typos, or minor refactoring
• Single-purpose changes affecting 1-2 files
• Documentation updates
• Configuration tweaks
• Changes that require minimal context to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 5-10 minutes

Examples:

• Fix typo in variable name
• Update README with new instructions
• Adjust configuration values
• Simple one-line bug fixes
• Import statement cleanup

Medium (M)

Characteristics:

• Feature additions or enhancements
• Refactoring that touches multiple files but maintains existing behavior
• Breaking changes with backward compatibility
• Changes requiring some domain knowledge to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 15-30 minutes

Examples:

• Add new feature or component
• Refactor common utility functions
• Update dependencies with minor breaking changes
• Add new component with tests
• Performance optimizations
• More complex bug fixes

Large (L)

Characteristics:

• Major feature implementations
• Breaking changes or API redesigns
• Complex refactoring across multiple modules
• New architectural patterns or significant design changes
• Changes requiring deep context and multiple review rounds

Review Effort: Would have taken 45+ minutes

Examples:

• Complete new feature with frontend/backend changes
• Protocol upgrades or breaking changes
• Major architectural refactoring
• Framework or technology upgrades

Additional Factors to Consider

When deciding between sizes, also consider:

• Test coverage impact: More comprehensive test changes lean toward larger classification
• Risk level: Changes to critical systems bump up a size category
• Team familiarity: Novel patterns or technologies increase complexity

Notes:

• the assessment must be for the totality of the PR, that means comparing the base branch to the last commit of the PR
• the assessment output must be exactly one of: S, M or L (single-line comment) in format of: SIZE={S/M/L}
• do not include any additional text, only the size classification
• your assessment comment must not include tips or additional sections
• do NOT tag me or anyone else on your comment

[coderabbitai]

Tip

For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes.

SIZE=L