-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2k
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
feat: Better errors for JsonRPC calls #1002
Conversation
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.
Good enough 👍 There are some nits and potential improvements that I'll address in a follow-up PR if you don't mind. Just fix compilation failures, please (AFAIU, some test code wasn't updated).
b1cbce3
to
c7d03e7
Compare
Signed-off-by: tomg10 <lemures64@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: tomg10 <lemures64@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: tomg10 <lemures64@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: tomg10 <lemures64@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: tomg10 <lemures64@gmail.com>
c7d03e7
to
34d968c
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.
I like this addition.
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.
👍
formatter.write_str(", ")?; | ||
} | ||
} | ||
formatter.write_str(")") |
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.
just curious - could we do something like .join(", ")
here? Did you want to avoid allocating a vector for this?
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.
Yes, it's an additional allocation that can be easily avoided.
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.
nice
🤖 I have created a release *beep* *boop* --- ## [20.7.0](core-v20.6.0...core-v20.7.0) (2024-02-16) ### Features * Add input field to CallRequest ([#1069](#1069)) ([5087121](5087121)) * **api:** Remove unused and obsolete token info ([#1071](#1071)) ([e920897](e920897)) * Better errors for JsonRPC calls ([#1002](#1002)) ([079f999](079f999)) * **commitment:** Commitment component ([#1024](#1024)) ([60305ba](60305ba)) * **en:** Make snapshots applier resilient and process storage log chunks in parallel ([#1036](#1036)) ([805218c](805218c)) * **node_framework:** Resources and layers for ETH clients ([#1074](#1074)) ([776337a](776337a)) * **node_framework:** Support StateKeeper in the framework ([#1043](#1043)) ([a80fff2](a80fff2)) ### Bug Fixes * **api:** Return on duplicate earlier ([#1059](#1059)) ([cfa5701](cfa5701)) * **contract-verifier:** Use optimizer mode in solidity-single-file verification ([#1079](#1079)) ([fdab638](fdab638)) * Token distribution ([#1051](#1051)) ([bd63b3a](bd63b3a)) --- This PR was generated with [Release Please](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please). See [documentation](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please#release-please).
What ❔
Provides additional context for JSON-RPC client calls used by the EN with the help of an extension trait.
Why ❔
Some of client errors are currently quite obscure and thus difficult to debug.
Checklist
zk fmt
andzk lint
.zk spellcheck
.zk linkcheck
.