-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 312
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
Transfer events backport #4875
Transfer events backport #4875
Conversation
This adds events for outbound, inbound, and refunds. This is sufficient for most indexing needs for now.
04147d5
to
4f3c3c4
Compare
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
3aefc9e
to
3df778e
Compare
Updates the cargo deps to use the most recent feature branches from the penumbra protocol repo, while we drive toward a dashboard. Also sorts the deps to make them a bit easier to read and edit. Refs [0], [1], [2]. [0] penumbra-zone/penumbra#4871 [1] penumbra-zone/penumbra#4875 [2] penumbra-zone/penumbra#4877
#4874 has been merged into main; @cronokirby can I trouble you to cherry-pick that squashed commit onto this branch? I tried myself, and wasn't sure about the conflict resolution, so I defer to you with your familiarity of the patch. |
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.
requesting cherry-pick of recently merged commit
The commit will have to be different because the IBC code changed in the meantime to have refunds for both transfers and error acks, so the logic of where you put the event emission is different; I think squashing the commits on this branch achieves the same effect as cherry picking and then having to modify the commit on main, idk |
Thanks, I accept that interpretation. I guess what I really care about is: do you believe this PR, #4875, is right now 100% suitable for squash-merge as into backport branch? We can discuss in detail on Monday, just wanted to confirm it's good to go, given both the revisions and the need for conflict resolution when re-generating the patch. |
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.
I checked the tricky bit again @conorsch, this has everything we need.
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.
let's do it 👍
A backport of #4874 to v0.79.X, for reindexing purposes.