Skip to content
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

[framework]:add exist_new_events fun and subscriber_info fun #2680

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 24, 2024

Conversation

mx819812523
Copy link
Collaborator

Summary

Summary about this PR

  • Closes #issue

Copy link

vercel bot commented Sep 24, 2024

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
rooch-portal-v2.1 ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Sep 24, 2024 4:22am
1 Skipped Deployment
Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
rooch ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) Visit Preview Sep 24, 2024 4:22am

Copy link

Dependency Review

✅ No vulnerabilities or license issues or OpenSSF Scorecard issues found.

OpenSSF Scorecard

PackageVersionScoreDetails

Scanned Manifest Files

Copy link
Contributor

@jolestar jolestar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Need to build and update the event_queue.md

(subscriber_sequence_number, head_sequence_number, tail_sequence_number)
}

public fun exist_new_events<E: copy + drop + store>(subscriber_obj: &Object<Subscriber<E>>): bool {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Unify to exists




public fun subscriber_info<E: copy + drop + store>(subscriber_obj: &Object<Subscriber<E>>):(u64, u64, u64) {
Copy link
Collaborator

@baichuan3 baichuan3 Sep 24, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it easier to call by passing object_id instead of subscriber_obj ?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The arguments in the transaction are same, both are ObjectID

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think there is not much difference between the two

(subscriber_sequence_number, head_sequence_number, tail_sequence_number)
}

public fun exist_new_events<E: copy + drop + store>(subscriber_obj: &Object<Subscriber<E>>): bool {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same as above

@jolestar
Copy link
Contributor

I merged this and updated it in a new PR.

@jolestar jolestar merged commit 6e1a4f7 into main Sep 24, 2024
9 of 10 checks passed
@jolestar jolestar deleted the dev_event_queue branch September 24, 2024 05:38
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.

3 participants