Contract log filters

[khaidarkairbek]

Version

0.8.8

Current behavior

Currently, filter field for contracts is restrictive, allowing only either filtering multiple events with no arguments or only one event with or without arguments. This restricts the following functionality: filtering multiple different events with arguments or filtering one event with multiple combination of arguments.

Expected behavior

I am suggesting to build on existing filter field adding a functionality to specify the array of filters, with identical api. So it would look something as follows:

{
  filter?: {
    event: string; 
    args?: <arg types>
  } | {
    event: string[]; 
  } | ({
    event: string; 
    args?: <arg types>
  } | {
    event: string[];
  })[]
}

Steps to reproduce

No response

Link to repository

No response

Anything else?

No response

[kyscott18]

While we are at it I think we should remove the event: string[] option. It doesn't actually do anything because Ponder looks at which indexing functions are registered and filters down based on that.

[khaidarkairbek]

While we are at it I think we should remove the event: string[] option. It doesn't actually do anything because Ponder looks at which indexing functions are registered and filters down based on that.

That sounds good. Currently, we are validating that no indexing function is defined for the events excluded by the filter. If we are looking into filtering certain event by the arguments, it would be a bit inconvenient from devx to include other events with no particular argument filtering in the config. Do you mean we are to include the logSources for the event if there is an indexing function defined for it? Then, we would need to remove that validation. I personally think it would be much cleaner, but let me know what you think.

[kyscott18]

I think that we should use registered indexing functions as topic0 filtering, and anything defined in the filters option as topic1/2/3.

Also, if there is a filter defined for an event that doesn't have a registered indexing function, that should probably be an error