Add proto definitions for Native DMC RPC client #19
Conversation
protobuf/types/dmc.proto
Outdated
| } | ||
|
|
||
| message GetBlockHashParam { | ||
| option uint64 at = 1; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's optional and it's not supported by proto3.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How would I deal with rust option values in proto?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Proto only supports a default value and default value for uint64 is zero, which is what will be assumed to be empty. If zero has special meaning in this context and integer size is not a problem, then we could use int64 and -1 to represent empty value.
protobuf/types/dmc.proto
Outdated
| string signature = 4; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| message MintBlockParam { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's use Input instead of Param and Result instead of Return
protobuf/types/dmc.proto
Outdated
| message DNCTx { | ||
| string from = 1; | ||
| string to = 2; | ||
| uint64 amount = 3; | ||
| string signature = 4; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| message DMCTx { | ||
| string from = 1; | ||
| string to = 2; | ||
| uint64 amount = 3; | ||
| string signature = 4; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will these two messages have the same set of fields? If so, we can combine them?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yea, they probably would. But need an identifier to distinguish between DMC side tx and Native side tx.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need to distinguish them if they have the same structure? Can't we just have Transaction?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because the address format from both sides will be different.
- Make DMCTx and DNCtx into one message with an identifier.
What kind of PR is this?:
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
Add proto definitions for the parameters involved with the RPC calls to the substrate DMC.
Which issue(s) does this PR fixes?:
Fixes #
Additional comments?: