-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
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
Live test fixes #260
Live test fixes #260
Conversation
…a Environment as well.
…es. Invalid values will throw a ValueError anyway.
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.
Looks good. I would like to keep this open until the test bridge deployment is working. Because this is already a collection of multiple small and not related changes.
The start_block_number refers to a value on the chain. I would rather not rename them.
this is fine for me. |
raise ValueError(f"{url} is not a valid RPC url") | ||
return url | ||
|
||
|
||
def validate_non_negative_integer(number: Any) -> float: | ||
def validate_non_negative_integer(number: Any) -> int: | ||
if str(number) != str(int(number)): |
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.
This check looks bogus. What should it do? Same below.
I do have the feeling that I could help with the function, but I'm not sure what kind of arguments it should be able to handle? string, int and float?
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.
String and int. The float version should handle string, float and int.
This is mostly to satisfy the tests. I want to input a "number" and it should be positive.
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.
Sorry, but I still don't get it, what this check does. This will filter out floats, anything else?
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.
It satisfies this test
The question is, does the test make sense, or should the function just use 1 and continue?
The validation issue has not been resolved, but I'd like to merge this branch soon-ish, because it contains some necessary fixes to run the bridge. The chainId problem is still open, but can hopefully be resolved by #262 All in all the changes do not break anything and can be merged to build upon. we can create a separate issue for the Validation stuff maybe? |
merge #263 and feel free to merge this PR. I will take care of the validation stuff. |
ethpm has been integrated into web3. That means we can get rid of the workaround for missing dependencies. Before upgrading to this version, the standalone ethpm package has to be manually uninstalled. The following PR has been merged into 5.0.0b4, which is the primary reason for the upgrade: ethereum/web3.py#1378
Many small changes and fixes related to running the app in "production"
It's probably easier to just look at the single commits to see what has changed and why.
While sorting the config parameters it showed, that the naming could be improved a bit.
Suggestions:
home_chain_event_fetch_start_block_number
->home_bridge_event_fetch_start_block_number
home_bridge_contract_address
foreign_chain_event_fetch_start_block_number
->foreign_bridge_event_fetch_start_block_number
foreign_bridge_contract_address
token_contract_address
->foreign_chain_token_contract_address
See the current
CONFIG_ENTRY_VALIDATORS
list. The suggestions are pretty obvious there.@schmir-at-bb Shall we change these?