-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 206
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
include block height, timestamp in chain-streams #5508
Comments
I learned from @michaelfig that cosmjs doesn't currently expose this, so we may have some upstream work to do. |
I was going to make an upstream feature request, but I see the question has already been asked and answered: |
Time consuming because we have to tweak the Go code and not break existing consumers in the process. |
Really? how so? The go code already produces the block number and timestamp, no? |
looks like get-flattened-publication.sh from #5878 includes a work-around. |
Yes, to some extent. It reports the block height of the RPC response, but not of the data itself. |
Ah. thanks for clarifying. |
@gibson042 I'm struggling to find a timestamp. Help?
|
We are not currently duplicating block timestamp in published data since $ curl -sS https://xnet.rpc.agoric.net/ -X POST -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
--data '{ "jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 1, "method": "block", "params": {} }' | \
jq '.result.block.header'
{
"version": {
"block": "11"
},
"chain_id": "agoricxnet-13",
"height": "77063",
"time": "2022-08-23T16:35:47.681142362Z",
"last_block_id": {
"hash": "06E0AB8D1794FBA24D2709CFD31AB1289607E9CA618EB20BF238A9D3609233E4",
"parts": {
"total": 1,
"hash": "1A3E5E2F4E4617061BC68DC52670DFFA1966AB5DBE1E021128DA626951E7F45B"
}
},
"last_commit_hash": "33668043EB5F83D635DA07A838478C0E8066917CC5032A8B606A4284AE26CF5D",
"data_hash": "E3B0C44298FC1C149AFBF4C8996FB92427AE41E4649B934CA495991B7852B855",
"validators_hash": "DED39EA80CF103DACB8B374AFF7824B66C46826E9543A3AF5DDD7FF5736E3C1E",
"next_validators_hash": "DED39EA80CF103DACB8B374AFF7824B66C46826E9543A3AF5DDD7FF5736E3C1E",
"consensus_hash": "048091BC7DDC283F77BFBF91D73C44DA58C3DF8A9CBC867405D8B7F3DAADA22F",
"app_hash": "C744487BCFE8D883354A54AEFE699C6DF678AD2E2733F252CADEF08FEF7F593D",
"last_results_hash": "E3B0C44298FC1C149AFBF4C8996FB92427AE41E4649B934CA495991B7852B855",
"evidence_hash": "E3B0C44298FC1C149AFBF4C8996FB92427AE41E4649B934CA495991B7852B855",
"proposer_address": "BFDCF84240F368658855C5BF04C8D8CA54915565"
} |
What is the Problem Being Solved?
Consumers of tick data require block_number, timestamp as part of borrow and lend positions
Description of the Design
I leave that to later.
Security Considerations
Test Plan
cc @michaelfig
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: