Open darrenvechain opened 2 weeks ago
Should be mention that the following parameters will be used during the execution: number
, timestamp
,total score
, gas limit
, beneficiary
and signer
, due to the implementation solution, signer will be zero address
beneficiary
You mean something like this @libotony ?
beneficiary
You mean something like this @libotony ?
Was just spreading the info to the team, but this one looks good!
Attention: Patch coverage is 92.20779%
with 6 lines
in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 62.60%. Comparing base (
c23c19a
) to head (9535b6d
). Report is 1 commits behind head on master.
Files | Patch % | Lines |
---|---|---|
api/utils/revisions.go | 89.28% | 3 Missing and 3 partials :warning: |
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
Minor bits that were mostly captured in the offline discussing.
I'm starting to think the next revision should be operational across all of our endpoints, to avoid creating edge cases. It seems to me fair to assume that if someone is requesting the "next" block they know what is that they are receiveing.
With that in mind a superset o
GetSummary
would probably consolidate the api flows.
There are two parts using revision, Call/Simulate
and Get /blocks/{revsion}
, next
will only apply to the Call/Simulate
, the latter won't work with next
(I don't see the necessity for returning a mocked next block in get blocks API). The GetSummaryAndState
function can be used to simplify the process, but allowNext
is essential to control whether the next
is supported.
Description
using the best block + 1 when estimating
Type of change
Please delete options that are not relevant.
How Has This Been Tested?
Checklist: