feat: show transactions from and to intelligent contracts#1010
feat: show transactions from and to intelligent contracts#1010
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1010 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 16.80% 16.73% -0.08%
==========================================
Files 127 127
Lines 10119 10164 +45
Branches 253 253
==========================================
Hits 1701 1701
- Misses 8333 8378 +45
Partials 85 85 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
| tx_processor = TransactionsProcessor(request_session) | ||
| multi_contract_trigger = [] | ||
| for tx in current_contract: | ||
| tx_data = tx_processor.get_transaction_by_hash(tx.hash) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why is this needed? tx is already the tx_data.
| .filter( | ||
| Transactions.type == TransactionType.RUN_CONTRACT, | ||
| Transactions.to_address == address, | ||
| Transactions.from_address.in_(contract_addresses), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need this check? Can't you write from_address or to_address == address?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we probably do not need the transactiontype check, that can be taken out, I think it helps readability when it is explicit
| if (!contractAddress) return; | ||
|
|
||
| try { | ||
| const response = await rpcClient.call({ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the RPC call should be moved to a dedicated service layer.
| .filter( | ||
| Transactions.type == TransactionType.RUN_CONTRACT, | ||
| Transactions.to_address == address, | ||
| Transactions.from_address.in_(contract_addresses), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the terminal I see this warning. Can you solve this?
/app/backend/protocol_rpc/endpoints.py:747: SAWarning: Coercing Subquery object into a select() for use in IN(); please pass a select() construct explicitly
Transactions.from_address.in_(contract_addresses),
| }, | ||
| (newAddress) => { | ||
| if (newAddress) { | ||
| fetchRelatedTransactions(newAddress); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see the related transactions in the transactions list when I switch to another contract and back. Is this expected? I thought it would show it without pressing on another gpy file.
| } | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def get_transactions_by_related_contract( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Henadek this method includes too many things that are not the responsibility of the endpoints layer. Here, we should only do validations and calls to the other services and processors.
3 participants
Fixes #988
What
Why
Testing done
Decisions made
Checks
Reviewing tips
User facing release notes