Expose signature of the block, if any in GraphQL #770
Conversation
fuel-core/src/schema/block.rs
Outdated
| @@ -79,6 +84,19 @@ impl Block { | |||
| &self.header | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| async fn signature(&self, ctx: &Context<'_>) -> Option<Signature> { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should have something more generic than signature here, as PoS will have multiple signatures etc. Can we reuse the fuel block consensus type instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Of course, we can=) I did it as a signature because it is easy to use. The question do we want to bring the complexity now or later=)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
After a private discussion, we can add complexity now and add an additional block_producer method to the Block.
Added compatibility tests for `fuel-core` and `fuel-client`.
| @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ members = [ | |||
| "fuel-tests", | |||
| "fuel-txpool", | |||
| "xtask", | |||
| "version-compatibility", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Voxelot wrote in the slack:
Im thinking we should test if client will still work against 0.14.1. Since it's a new field it'd be nice if an older version of the server just ignored the request, but we should double check that this won't suddenly break the SDK etc
So I added tests to verify version compatibility between 0.14.1 and 0.14.2
| if let TransactionStatus::Success { block_id, .. } = | ||
| transaction_response.unwrap().status | ||
| { | ||
| // TODO: We need to decide is that breaking change or not. For now, the test fails, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If fuel-client is 0.14.2 but fuel-core is 0.14.1 the test fails with "Unknown field 'consensus'".
We have 4 variants on how to fix that=)
- Make a breaking change
0.15.0. - Extract
consensusfromBlockinto a separate method and on the client side try to fetch that part if it is possible in a separate request. - Do two requests, one with a new version of the block, if it fails, send it with the old version=)
- Add a new method to the
Blockinfuel-clientto get theconsensusfield by passingFuelClient=)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Option 1. would be the cleanest, as fuel-client 0.15.0 would still be compatible with fuel-core 0.14.1.
Previously the producer of the block was a part of the header. But after change it is not. Added exposing of all information required to get it