-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 977
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
Relay validator set updates #1157
Relay validator set updates #1157
Conversation
4f3a1ab
to
c583fbe
Compare
[u8; 32], | ||
[u8; 32], | ||
Vec<Signature>, | ||
) = abi_decode_struct(encoded_proof); |
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 seems like we are doing lots of unnecessary rounds of serialization.
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.
the RPC method could return a non-abi encoded data response. right now it borsh serializes the abi encoding of the data. CLI commands requesting a proof are kind of obsolete now, but if we wanted to keep them anyway (so users could potentially implement shell scripts around this or smth?), they could be responsible for returning the ABI encoding of the data queried from our RPC endpoints
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 think it makes more sense to borsh serialize the raw struct and down the road, if some script needs abi encoding, it can call abi encoding on the raw struct itself. I don't think that's an unreasonable burden to put on people implementing their own scripts.
I just feel like we have a lot of artifact code that I would like to clear out. This damn repo is complicated enough as it is.
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 feel the same. I'll work on this later though, right now it's out of the scope of this PR
EDIT: opened #1160
println!("{transf_result:?}"); | ||
} | ||
|
||
// NOTE: there's a bug (or feature?!) in ethers, where |
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.
Probably a feature 😆
Based on #1159.
Implements item 6) of #242.