[Not ready] Ftmscan #52
Conversation
|
i have designed the api logic to pull tokens directly on polygon and ftmscan pullers and am currently working on a ApiParser class to pull the full token info |
scripts/ApiParser.ts
Outdated
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // const a: ApiParser = new ApiParser("https://polygonscan.com"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think these comments can be deleted?
| const website = ($(tableCells[5]).find("a").attr("href") || "") // had to change .attr("data-original-title") to .attr("href") for arbiscan | ||
| .toLowerCase(); | ||
| // image path is relative to prepend with root URL | ||
| // if (tokenImage.startsWith("/")) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think these comments can be removed?
| const cookiesString: string = cookies | ||
| .map((cookie) => `${cookie.name}=${cookie.value}`) | ||
| .join("; "); | ||
| // console.log(cookiesString, baseUrl); |
| }; | ||
| const ftmScanHtmlParser = scanConfig["ftmscan"].htmlParser; | ||
| const baseUrl = scanConfig["ftmscan"].website; | ||
| await ftmScanHtmlParser.login(page, baseUrl); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe this part requires user interaction, so we can name the test file as .integration.test.ts so that if we ever want to run unit tests in ci, we can call those .unit.test.ts
| website: string; | ||
| }; | ||
| export type ApiResponse = { | ||
| d: { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's avoid ever naming variables something like "d". Programming languages as-high-level-as JavaScript benefit from being specific with variable names. Short ones don't make the program faster and they just make coming back as a dev more difficult.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@dawsbot i followed the naming convention of the original api call as those are the exact field names they use. i will alter this if that is a bad practice
| data: Array<{ | ||
| tokenName: string; | ||
| tokenSymbol: string; | ||
| // tokenImage: string; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this should be commented out but made to be optional? I don't remember
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@dawsbot i commented the tokenImage field out as we do not have support for any chains yet. I would like to purpose once all chains have base functionality (pulling all other fields) that we add tokenImages as a new PR in one clean sweep. this is because it seems we shouldn't want just one field to be optional and do this process chain by chain involves having it optional to avoid linting errors and pre commit issues
|
Will come back to |
We need to ensure image urls are not relative paths but rather absolute paths. Otherwise consumers need to know what the base URL is for each image.