starknet_api: add BlockHashVersion::V0_14_3 variant

[sirandreww-starkware]

No description provided.

[sirandreww-starkware]

• starknet_api: include fee_proposal_fri in proposal commitment hash #13814 : 2 dependent PRs (#13854 , #13881 )
• starknet_api: add fee_proposal_fri to BlockHeaderWithoutHash #13822
• apollo_storage: add fee_proposal to StorageBlockHeader #13813
• starknet_api: add fee_proposal to BlockHeaderWithoutHash #13811
• apollo_protobuf: add fee_proposal_fri to ProposalInit #13812
• starknet_api: add BlockHashVersion::V0_14_3 variant #13876 👈 (View in Graphite)
• apollo_consensus_orchestrator_config: rename validate_price_per_height to validate_dynamic_config #13810
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[yoavGrs]

@yoavGrs reviewed 4 files and all commit messages, and made 2 comments.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on dorimedini-starkware, matanl-starkware, ShahakShama, and sirandreww-starkware).

---

a discussion (no related file):
Please modify crates/starknet_api/src/block_hash/block_hash_calculator_test.rs - the tests test_hash_changes and test_block_hash_regression.

---

crates/starknet_api/src/block_hash/block_hash_calculator.rs line 50 at r2 (raw file):

    ascii_as_felt("STARKNET_BLOCK_HASH1").expect("ascii_as_felt failed for 'STARKNET_BLOCK_HASH1'")
});
pub static STARKNET_BLOCK_HASH2: LazyLock<Felt> = LazyLock::new(|| {

IMO it's clearer, non-blocking.
If you accept it, please update the previous statics as well

Suggestion:

STARKNET_BLOCK_HASH2: LazyLock<BlockHashConstant> 

[sirandreww-starkware]

@sirandreww-starkware made 2 comments and resolved 1 discussion.
Reviewable status: 3 of 5 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on dorimedini-starkware, matanl-starkware, ShahakShama, and yoavGrs).

---

a discussion (no related file):

Previously, yoavGrs wrote…

Please modify crates/starknet_api/src/block_hash/block_hash_calculator_test.rs - the tests test_hash_changes and test_block_hash_regression.

Done - added V0_14_3 to test_block_hash_regression's #[values(...)] (with the corresponding expected hash), and parameterized the test_hash_changes macro on block_hash_version so change_field_of_hash_input now runs as an rstest over both V0_13_4 and V0_14_3.

---

crates/starknet_api/src/block_hash/block_hash_calculator.rs line 50 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, yoavGrs wrote…

IMO it's clearer, non-blocking.
If you accept it, please update the previous statics as well

Done

[yoavGrs]

@yoavGrs reviewed 1 file and all commit messages, and made 1 comment.
Reviewable status: 4 of 5 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on dorimedini-starkware, matanl-starkware, ShahakShama, and sirandreww-starkware).

---

crates/starknet_api/src/block_hash/block_hash_calculator_test.rs line 231 at r3 (raw file):

#[rstest]
fn change_field_of_hash_input(
    #[values(BlockHashVersion::V0_13_4, BlockHashVersion::V0_14_3)]

Changing fee_proposal won't change the hash for V0_13_4, so you need to test it only for V0_14_3.

[sirandreww-starkware]

@sirandreww-starkware made 1 comment.
Reviewable status: 4 of 5 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on dorimedini-starkware, matanl-starkware, ShahakShama, and yoavGrs).

---

crates/starknet_api/src/block_hash/block_hash_calculator_test.rs line 231 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, yoavGrs wrote…

Changing fee_proposal won't change the hash for V0_13_4, so you need to test it only for V0_14_3.

And I assume we only want to test the latest version? so no value in gating for different hash versions.
In any case, this PR is before the addition of fee_proposal to the hash, will add a TODO and fix it when fee proposal is introduced to the hash calculation

[github-actions]

Artifacts upload workflows:

• Started at 2026-04-27T11:51:29Z
• Started at 2026-04-27T12:39:35Z
• Started at 2026-04-28T07:38:14Z

[yoavGrs]

@yoavGrs reviewed 1 file and all commit messages, made 2 comments, and resolved 1 discussion.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on dorimedini-starkware, matanl-starkware, ShahakShama, and sirandreww-starkware).

---

crates/starknet_api/src/block_hash/block_hash_calculator_test.rs line 231 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, sirandreww-starkware (Andrew Luka) wrote…

And I assume we only want to test the latest version? so no value in gating for different hash versions.
In any case, this PR is before the addition of fee_proposal to the hash, will add a TODO and fix it when fee proposal is introduced to the hash calculation

Yes, we test only the latest.

---

crates/starknet_api/src/block_hash/block_hash_calculator_test.rs line 42 at r4 (raw file):

        {
            let partial_block_hash_components = PartialBlockHashComponents {
                starknet_version: BlockHashVersion::V0_13_4.into(),

Suggestion:

BlockHashVersion::V0_14_3

[sirandreww-starkware]

@sirandreww-starkware made 1 comment.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on dorimedini-starkware, matanl-starkware, ShahakShama, and yoavGrs).

---

crates/starknet_api/src/block_hash/block_hash_calculator_test.rs line 42 at r4 (raw file):

        {
            let partial_block_hash_components = PartialBlockHashComponents {
                starknet_version: BlockHashVersion::V0_13_4.into(),

This is done in #13814
Would you prefer this change to be done here? Isn't this change meaningless unless fee_proposal is added to the test?
I can do it here if you prefer

[yoavGrs]

@yoavGrs reviewed 1 file and all commit messages, made 1 comment, and resolved 2 discussions.
Reviewable status: 5 of 7 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on dorimedini-starkware, matanl-starkware, ShahakShama, and sirandreww-starkware).

---

crates/blockifier/resources/blockifier_versioned_constants_0_14_3.json line 71 at r5 (raw file):

        "allowed_virtual_os_program_hashes": [
            "0x3e98c2d7703b03a7edb73ed7f075f97f1dcbaa8f717cdf6e1a57bf058265473",
            "0x46328da2901e5ccd1585a82de99fd97d0e757a876d6b66f29d8ca94bb5ba27b"

Do you need both hashes?
Please ask someone on the privacy team to review.

Code quote:

            "0x3e98c2d7703b03a7edb73ed7f075f97f1dcbaa8f717cdf6e1a57bf058265473",
            "0x46328da2901e5ccd1585a82de99fd97d0e757a876d6b66f29d8ca94bb5ba27b"