api: /{runtime}/accounts/{addr}: Show contract runtime bytecode, show eth address of originating tx #452
Conversation
api/spec/v1.yaml
Outdated
| format: byte | ||
| description: | | ||
| The runtime bytecode of the smart contract. This is the code stored on-chain that | ||
| descibes a smart contract. This field is normally present, except for contracts |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Missing line?
Also, since the runtime bytecode analyzer might be behind/stalled, the field will be missing for contract accounts that haven't been processed yet. Do you think it's worth checking the evm_contract_analysis table and providing something akin to pending if is_contract == NULL? Or perhaps amending the description is sufficient in this case
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you, finished the sentence now. What I wanted to say there was essentially what you wrote. I don't think we need an explicit pending; null essentially takes that role.
[analyzer] store contract address and tx
[openapi] add contract information to /runtime/accounts/{addr}
[api] add contract fields to /runtime/accounts/{addr}
[analyzer] store contract creation bytecode
[api] show contract creation bytecode
[db] add creation/runtime bytecode for evm contract accounts
nit
[db] standardize pkey format; remove evm contract fields
[openapi] address comments
address comments; simplify fields
fix bad rebase
linter
update description
|
@mitjat can you please consider this? 7e2fa47#r118274739 |
mitjat
force-pushed
the
mitjat/api-contract-info
branch
from
e67076c
to
195378b
Compare
mitjat
changed the title
| type: string | ||
| description: | | ||
| The Ethereum transaction hash of the transaction in `creation_tx`. | ||
| Encoded as a lowercase hex string. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess the "Can be omitted for contracts..." note is naturally implied by the descrption of creation_tx so it can be omitted.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
😁 yeah I figured this is better than repeating the whole description of when it can be omitted, especially since the condition might change in the (far-ish) future if we implement contract execution tracing.
mitjat
force-pushed
the
mitjat/evm-contract-code-analyzer
branch
from
2e5a620
to
746a171
Compare
mitjat
force-pushed
the
mitjat/api-contract-info
branch
from
195378b
to
aeae282
Compare
mitjat
force-pushed
the
mitjat/api-contract-info
branch
from
aeae282
to
2da9ca0
Compare
e2e_regression: Fix expected output after #452
This PR exposes two new fields in the contracts API:
Testing: Manually ran the new analyzer, then visited a contract address and a non-contract address and verified that the new field is as expected.