You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The current Horizon listener reconciliation implementation is a production-quality risk area: Ledger events can arrive late, duplicated, or out of order and must converge database projections without terminal-state regression.
This issue requires meaningful implementation and focused tests. Typo-only, documentation-only, formatting-only, dependency-only, and cosmetic changes do not satisfy the scope.
Objective
bound rendering, polling, network, and memory costs while making degraded behavior observable for the implementation anchored at src/config/horizonListener.ts; src/repositories/transactionRepository.ts.
Scope
Establish the feature's explicit state, data, authorization, and failure invariants.
Set explicit bounds for pagination, polling, chart points, upload sizes, and concurrent requests where applicable.
Avoid redundant fetches and state updates during route changes, reconnects, or rapid user interaction.
Expose actionable client telemetry or structured diagnostics for latency, failure, and recovery paths without leaking secrets.
Keep the change focused on this feature and preserve unrelated public behavior.
Acceptance criteria
The implementation defines and enforces the relevant invariants for normal and adversarial inputs.
Set explicit bounds for pagination, polling, chart points, upload sizes, and concurrent requests where applicable.
Avoid redundant fetches and state updates during route changes, reconnects, or rapid user interaction.
Expose actionable client telemetry or structured diagnostics for latency, failure, and recovery paths without leaking secrets.
Automated tests cover success, failure, boundary, retry, and permission behavior applicable to this feature.
The PR includes validation commands, design tradeoffs, and any remaining limitations.
The PR references this issue using Refs #<issue-number>.
Priority
Medium — determined by the potential impact on correctness, user funds or data, security, availability, and implementation depth.
Non-goals
Do not make typo-only, documentation-only, formatting-only, dependency-only, or cosmetic changes.
Do not remove tests merely to make CI pass.
Do not introduce secrets, credentials, unsafe network defaults, or unrelated refactors.
Contributor application
Before starting, comment with relevant experience, a concise implementation approach, the main risks or tradeoffs, and an estimate for opening the first draft PR. Wait for maintainer assignment before coding.
Submission requirements
Use PR title format: [#<issue-number>] <short summary>.
Address every acceptance criterion in the PR description and implementation.
Include focused automated tests and validation results.
Explain any unavoidable limitations or pre-existing CI failures.
Address maintainer review feedback before requesting final review.
Quality evaluation will consider scope adherence, implementation quality, test depth, security, correctness, review responsiveness, and follow-up stability.
Problem
The current
Horizon listener reconciliationimplementation is a production-quality risk area: Ledger events can arrive late, duplicated, or out of order and must converge database projections without terminal-state regression.This issue requires meaningful implementation and focused tests. Typo-only, documentation-only, formatting-only, dependency-only, and cosmetic changes do not satisfy the scope.
Objective
bound rendering, polling, network, and memory costs while making degraded behavior observable for the implementation anchored at
src/config/horizonListener.ts; src/repositories/transactionRepository.ts.Scope
Acceptance criteria
Refs #<issue-number>.Priority
Medium — determined by the potential impact on correctness, user funds or data, security, availability, and implementation depth.
Non-goals
Contributor application
Before starting, comment with relevant experience, a concise implementation approach, the main risks or tradeoffs, and an estimate for opening the first draft PR. Wait for maintainer assignment before coding.
Submission requirements
[#<issue-number>] <short summary>.Quality evaluation will consider scope adherence, implementation quality, test depth, security, correctness, review responsiveness, and follow-up stability.