Skip to content
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

fix(rpc): return error instead of wrong operation type in otterscan API #10896

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

emhane
Copy link
Member

@emhane emhane commented Sep 13, 2024

Return error instead of wrong operation type for EOFCREATE in otterscan API, until otterscan API has EOF support. Likely users will believe that there is smthg wrong with the node rather than RPC response if we return the wrong operation type.

@emhane emhane added the A-dependencies Pull requests or issues that are about dependencies label Sep 13, 2024
@emhane
Copy link
Member Author

emhane commented Sep 13, 2024

blocked by alloy-rs/alloy#1288

@emhane emhane added the S-blocked This cannot more forward until something else changes label Sep 13, 2024
@DaniPopes
Copy link
Member

Doesn't have to be blocked on it, I doubt otterscan will add a new variant for this since it's essentially the same as create

@emhane emhane removed the S-blocked This cannot more forward until something else changes label Sep 15, 2024
@emhane emhane changed the title chore(deps): cargo update chore(rpc): return error instead of wrong operation type in otterscan API Sep 16, 2024
@emhane emhane added C-bug An unexpected or incorrect behavior A-rpc Related to the RPC implementation and removed A-dependencies Pull requests or issues that are about dependencies labels Sep 16, 2024
@emhane emhane changed the title chore(rpc): return error instead of wrong operation type in otterscan API fix(rpc): return error instead of wrong operation type in otterscan API Sep 16, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@mattsse mattsse left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think this is useful because mostlikely the user doesn't care whether the create was done in eof or not, as far as otterscan is concerned this is also just a Create and we shouldn't fail, so mapping this to a regular create variant makes more sense here until there's a spec update for otterscan

@mattsse mattsse closed this Sep 18, 2024
@emhane
Copy link
Member Author

emhane commented Sep 18, 2024

ref otterscan/otterscan#2457

@mattsse
Copy link
Collaborator

mattsse commented Sep 18, 2024

cool then we can add the variant to the otterscan type in alloy

@DaniPopes DaniPopes deleted the emhane/bump-deps branch September 18, 2024 20:18
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-rpc Related to the RPC implementation C-bug An unexpected or incorrect behavior
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants