-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.7k
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
Increase usage of new Fuel_txpool #238
Merged
Merged
Changes from 21 commits
Commits
Show all changes
25 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
93a7b1e
2 tests left
ControlCplusControlV 0079f98
Fix all tests
ControlCplusControlV f891083
Fix find_tx to check mempool
ControlCplusControlV 7cb5845
clippy and fmt
ControlCplusControlV 48b4834
much neater
ControlCplusControlV 27d8cde
much neater v2
ControlCplusControlV 9d07c91
fix
ControlCplusControlV b6b01ab
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into controlc/insert_rpc
ControlCplusControlV 8de152f
Started runtime checking and moving to a new feature
ControlCplusControlV 0f5c1e5
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into controlc/insert_rpc
ControlCplusControlV 6600da9
Correct error handling?
ControlCplusControlV 7226644
forgot fmt
ControlCplusControlV a0c7b65
fix clippy
ControlCplusControlV a4f1aac
Update fuel-core/src/tx_pool.rs
ControlCplusControlV f76d637
Update fuel-core/src/tx_pool.rs
ControlCplusControlV 82e2681
Update fuel-core/src/tx_pool.rs
ControlCplusControlV 90644c8
Added Test
ControlCplusControlV d62c791
fmt
ControlCplusControlV 8a5c9f7
Merge branch 'master' into controlc/insert_rpc
ControlCplusControlV ea8be2e
fix test
ControlCplusControlV 715b4b8
checking status correctly
ControlCplusControlV 88950a7
Transaction Status Success?
ControlCplusControlV 082876b
forgot fmt again
ControlCplusControlV 51750b7
Made tests more extensive
ControlCplusControlV 2298094
clippy
ControlCplusControlV File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
@Voxelot this seems like it needs a rework, updating status before it is executed is not a good flow, everything before block/tx inclusion shouldn't leave any trace in database, only after block is included we could have status of it.
Expected status of transaction is:
Is sdk using this information? Maybe we need to change how we get status, and do it in the same as it is done in TxQuery::transaction
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.
I agree this needs rework and this was called out on the original task:
I'm assuming there will be follow-up PR's to finish the rest of the planned work? @ControlCplusControlV
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.
@Voxelot yes I am planning on using a fallback based on tx status rather than existence in a separate PR, as I figured there may be some overlap with #183 in part atleast, by tackling
As I could generate the first status based on if it errors when inserting into the tx pool (which would require utxo verification to be on to determine if a tx is invalid) and then the second would be a result of a failure but the tx was includable.
Unless you would rather that separate PR just cover lookup in mempool by status?