-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
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
uses evm tool via server rather than proccess forks #66
Conversation
6a0c632
to
469bf37
Compare
32cf891
to
4626657
Compare
- write block_result in temporary files powered by Briefly.
8ed0ed3
to
1a1a8a2
Compare
1a1a8a2
to
1813f84
Compare
e6ab408
to
8f9a671
Compare
8f9a671
to
ea9f2f2
Compare
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.
This is a pretty big PR and it also introduces a fork from the "binary as a pipeline transformer plugin" direction we had before. I would suggest when we merge this after the comments and some corrections are addressed - and that we release the v0.2.0
of rudder, because of the departure from the earlier build direction or support both in the future - running the transformer binaries on bsps through the porcelain process and/or running the http servers as externally dependent services, it would complicate things a bit and so how to do that of course I would leave to you!
@@ -1,10 +0,0 @@ | |||
ERIGON_SUBMODULE=erigon |
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 think we should still have a makefile for rudder setup where we can consolidate different calls to the iex like loading dependencies etc.
@sudeepdino008 thanks for fixing the CI along with this, btw I noticed some performance drops from using the evm server opposed to the plugin, what do you think we can do about this? use as plugin
use as server
anything we can do to make it up? |
running both would be unadvisable - the cost of maintaining and following the documentation and code is too big to justify keeping both approaches in the repo. |
good catch on the perf issues. I'm however comfortable with how we have here. We should analyze the pipeline later when there's a need for it; right now in this PR, the only thing that changed was http overhead instead of process forks. I'll nevertheless explore some simple things which should fix evm server perf and post a separate PR for that. |
58f409b
to
e935f9b
Compare
@kitti-katy reverted to defp |
@sudeepdino008 there are other places where the listener makes web3 calls (to fetch logs and block height) which might fail if something is wrong with the node, I don't think In the first case, the http adapter already makes 5 retries and in the second case if the contract is changed, I assume they will have to upgrade the rudder too. |
sounds good @kitti-katy |
Tested this with the No_such_log fix PR and it was working smooth. Note that this depends on covalenthq/erigon#11 getting merged.
Need to fix testing and any Dockerfile for this.