feat: 764 add new rpc endpoints metamask #765
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #765 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 18.21% 18.38% +0.17%
==========================================
Files 129 129
Lines 10076 10118 +42
Branches 302 306 +4
==========================================
+ Hits 1835 1860 +25
- Misses 8156 8173 +17
Partials 85 85 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
epsjunior
changed the title
epsjunior
changed the title
| def get_block_by_number( | ||
| transactions_processor: TransactionsProcessor, block_number: str, full_tx: bool | ||
| ) -> dict | None: | ||
| try: | ||
| block_number_int = int(block_number, 16) | ||
| except ValueError: | ||
| raise JSONRPCError(f"Invalid block number format: {block_number}") | ||
|
|
||
| block_details = transactions_processor.get_transactions_for_block( | ||
| block_number_int, include_full_tx=full_tx | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| if not block_details: | ||
| raise JSONRPCError(f"Block not found for number: {block_number}") | ||
|
|
||
| return block_details |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is the signature dict | None? I don't see anywhere where it could return None
|
|
||
| receipt = { | ||
| "transactionHash": transaction_hash, | ||
| "transactionIndex": hex(0), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
because we just have one transaction per "block"
| receipt = { | ||
| "transactionHash": transaction_hash, | ||
| "transactionIndex": hex(0), | ||
| "blockHash": transaction_hash, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is a block the same as a transaction for us? a small explanation in a comment would be great
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We don't have a block table or block hash rn, so yes, at this moment I'm considering transaction = block
| transaction_hash: str, | ||
| ) -> dict | None: | ||
|
|
||
| transaction = transactions_processor.get_transaction_by_hash(transaction_hash) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we could probably take advantage of the Transaction type if we returned some dataclass instead of a dict. This way we wouldn't need to do so many transaction.get below
| else None | ||
| ), | ||
| "logs": transaction.get("logs", []), | ||
| "logsBloom": "0x" + "00" * 256, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
will we fill this with something at some point?
| ) -> dict: | ||
| transactions = ( | ||
| self.session.query(Transactions) | ||
| .filter(Transactions.nonce == block_number) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we should explain somehow that block_number === nonce
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I changed from nonce to timestamp here: 20b83f0
timestamp is the only unique key on transactions table
|
Fixes #764
What
is_valid_addresswithis_addressfor Ethereum address validation in theaccounts_manager.get_block_by_numberandget_block_by_hash, to the RPC endpoints.AccountSelect.vue.useGenLayerandaccounts.tsto handle MetaMask account logic and wallet selection.transactions_processor.py:global.d.tsfile to define theethereumobject for TypeScript support.Why
Testing Done
fetchMetaMaskAccountmethod.Decisions Made
is_addressoveris_valid_addressfor Ethereum validation for improved consistency across the codebase.Checks
Reviewing Tips
transactions_processor.pyand the new MetaMask logic in the frontend.User-Facing Release Notes