Skip to content
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

remove arb and eth goerli networks #608

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 17, 2023
Merged

Conversation

avichalp
Copy link
Collaborator

@avichalp avichalp commented Nov 16, 2023

Summary

This PR removes support for arbitrum and ethereum goerli networks. See #607 for details

  • Are changes backward compatible with existing SDKs, or is there a plan to manage it correctly?
  • Are changes covered by existing tests, or were new tests included?
  • Are code changes optimized for future code readers, commenting on problematic areas to understand (if any)?
  • Future-self question: Did you avoid unjustified/unnecessary complexity to achieve the goal?

Signed-off-by: avichalp <hi@avichalp.me>
@@ -52,25 +52,6 @@
"ChainStackCollectFrequency": "15m"
},
"Chains": [
{
"Name": "Ethereum Goerli",
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@avichalp avichalp marked this pull request as ready for review November 16, 2023 11:16
@asutula
Copy link
Contributor

asutula commented Nov 16, 2023

Will the validator still support read queries (and other types of gateway requests) for tables on these goerli networks?

@avichalp
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@asutula i don't think so. the tables will still be there in the validator's database but the gateway has this notion of "supported chains". it rejects any query to an unsupported chain

@brunocalza
Copy link
Collaborator

Will the validator still support read queries (and other types of gateway requests) for tables on these goerli networks?

The query will work, actually. The check of supported chains does not happen in the /query call. Can't remember if that was by design or an accident.

Either way, an additional comment: if we ever start the validator from scratch again, the data would be lost because the validator wouldn't pick the events of a not-supported chain (we'd still have them in the backups taken when the chain was supported). We don't have the concept of "network was supported between this interval, so pick those events up".

@asutula
Copy link
Contributor

asutula commented Nov 16, 2023

Thanks for the info @brunocalza.

if we ever start the validator from scratch again

This implies that if any new validator joins the nework, they won't have the data. Seems we should consider the data gone/unavailable then. I could be smart to delete the tables from the validator state (and Studio's state), but that may be another conversation.

@avichalp avichalp merged commit bd7c3ab into main Nov 17, 2023
5 checks passed
@avichalp avichalp deleted the avichalp/remove-arb-goerli branch November 17, 2023 18:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants