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
Add RPC endpoints #12
Comments
|
Chatted to @ligi about this. Let’s add valuable per chain data if we have data for a number of chains. Let’s learn what’s most useful and go from there. |
|
Moving from question to enhancement as I see rough consensus here |
|
Can this list also include ws/wss endpoints in addition to http/https endpoints, or would you want that in a different key? |
|
Good question. I would say yes as it seems to be the most clean solution. But I am not 100% sure if all consuming parties can deal with it (meaning e.g. ignore these entries if wss is not supported). I will try to reach out to some people. Where do you want to add them currently? |
|
@ligi By "where" do you mean "for which chains" or "where in the schema"? I know of public websocket endpoints for at least POA, xDai, and Binance Smart Chain; and, since Infura API keys are allowed as parameters, Ethereum. (As for the schema, I personally felt they should go in the same list as the http endpoints, and that is where I was putting them in the little database of chains I was momentarily putting together yesterday, before my research led me to this shared resource; but I don't actually "care", which is why I asked where you all felt they should go ;P.) |
|
@saurik great! yea with "where" I mean which chains. |
|
I'm not sure what the purpose of adding RPC endpoints serves. |
|
this is about public endpoints. Not always you have access to a local endpoint |
wonder if we should add a list of RPC endpoints (can also be an empty list - so the field is optional) for the chains.
Inspired by #10 (comment)
This would also allow a ci-script to make checks for the chain_id (also inspired by the very same PR)
Disadvantage might be that it is widening the scope too much - what does the rest of the team think?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: