-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 302
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 ID filtering to AuctionsRequest; add local_seq to AuctionsResponse #4472
Conversation
e6e59cd
to
cab5ea7
Compare
// | ||
// Dutch auctions move from: | ||
// 0 (opened) => 1 (closed) => n (withdrawn) | ||
uint64 local_seq = 5; |
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.
note_record
above uses 4
, which is why this field uses 5
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.
oh strange, could you move it so that they're ordered 🙏
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.
done
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.
LGTM
did async review post merge and LGTM! |
Describe your changes
This PR makes two changes:
auction_ids_filter
toAuctionsRequest
, so that clients can make requests (e.g., withqueryLatestState
) for just specific auctions rather than all auctions at once.local_seq
property toAuctionsResponse
to indicate the local view service's own knowledge of the sequence number for an auction. (See pcli: auction end-all, withdraw-all #4385 (comment).)Relevant changes are to the protobuf here, plus a couple TODO items here and here.
Issue ticket number and link
penumbra-zone/web#1059 and #4385 (comment)
Checklist before requesting a review
If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: