view service: Implement LQT rpcs #5062
Conversation
TalDerei
added
the
consensus-breaking
| core.component.sct.v1.Nullifier nullifier = 2; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| message LqtVotingNotesResponse { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That doesn't seem right, because this RPC is supposed to return SNRs that can be used to vote in the LQT
There was a problem hiding this comment.
right makes sense, thinking the request should take the epoch_index and address_index, and response should just be list of all eligible SNRs that are eligible and haven't been used to vote yet in current LQT period?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thinking about this more, what's the utility of returning SNRs in the response body to the frontend? why not just store them directly in to the LqtVotingNotes IndexedDB table during the rpc call? Our existing logic for querying voting notes in wasm + nullifier rpc should be sufficient to filter eligible voting notes and save them to storage.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we want to make assumptions about shared memory, for example, how would that work if the view server is remote (pclientd) or if we are using the rust view server like in pcli.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
that's a good point thanks
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // A list of votes cast for different incentivized assets. | ||
| repeated Vote votes = 1; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One thing I forgot to add is the TransactionId for the vote
There was a problem hiding this comment.
added TransactionId field to TournamentVotesResponse
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we also need the AddressIndex in the request here
## Describe your changes appends `AddressIndex` field to `TournamentVotesRequest` ## Issue ticket number and link references #5062 ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] 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: > LQT branch
Describe your changes
defines and stubs
LqtVotingNotesandTournamentVotesview service rpcs.Issue ticket number and link
Checklist before requesting a review
I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes.
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: