Refactor RPC handling #925
Conversation
blishko
force-pushed
the
rpc-refactor
branch
2 times, most recently
from
7f3c7c1 to
2afa42f
Compare
When RPC info is not provided, we should treat access to an address as accessing unknown contract. This is a valid behaviour and there is no need to warn about it.
If RPC info is now provided, we should just respond with unknown contract for each request. We do not need session for that.
blishko
force-pushed
the
rpc-refactor
branch
from
2afa42f to
44c0dc9
Compare
msooseth
left a comment
msooseth
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is great! The fetch.hs is sooo much cleaner! I would just like to ask for 1-2 tests for stderr to contain some of the errors that you wrote. I want to make sure we basically encode in our tests what the expected behaviour is. You removed some tests, which is fine, but at least 1-2 tests about the RPC missing internal error would be nice.
|
Hmm. I only removed the tests that were testing the presence (or absence) of a Warning message that is being removed. We agreed that it should be removed, because the scenario that triggered it is actually a perfectly valid scenario. I did not add any new errors. I am not sure what kind of tests I should add. |
msooseth
left a comment
msooseth
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fair enough :) Approving!
Description
The main proposed change in RPC is that we do not require a session if no RPC info is provided.
No RPC info should be interpreted as "unknown address contains unknown contract".
No RPC call should be made in such case and so no session is required here.
We also remove the definition of
RpcInfoas aSemigroup.I don't think it makes mathematical sense to say this is a semigroup.
Instead we make an explicit function that represents "no RPC info".
Checklist