-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
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
feat(provider): receipt and transaction by id in BlockchainProvider2
#10281
Conversation
3848141
to
270c2eb
Compare
270c2eb
to
c20bb0e
Compare
BlockchainProvider2
fn block_number_by_tx_id( | ||
&self, | ||
id: TxNumber, | ||
) -> ProviderResult<Option<(BlockNumber, usize, bool)>> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
maybe an enum is better?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
When it is in memory, could we just return the entire BlockState
as well as the tx index here, rather than just the block number? That way the calling methods do not need to fetch the state again
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yeah right, fixed
fn block_number_by_tx_id( | ||
&self, | ||
id: TxNumber, | ||
) -> ProviderResult<Option<(BlockNumber, usize, bool)>> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
When it is in memory, could we just return the entire BlockState
as well as the tx index here, rather than just the block number? That way the calling methods do not need to fetch the state again
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm
Addresses #10182 and #10181, but only parts with point queries