feat(gnodev): add tx-indexer process manager to gnodev

[itsHabib]

Issue

• Closes feature request: Include tx-indexer in gnodev, automatically refresh on reload #2082

Description

• Adds an internal package to manage the tx-indexer process for gnodev development
  • Flags are passed through from gnodev to tx-indexer, disabled by default
  • logging is forwarded from the tx-indexer process through the gnodev logger
• Supports Start,Stop,Reload functionality for the tx-indexer process

Testing Validation

Performed validation by doing some basic checks

Running gnodev

• Starting gnodev without the tx-indexer flag enabled, assert that tx-indexer process is not started
  

• Starting gnodev with tx-indexer flag enabled, assert tx indexer starts
  

• Reloading gnodev, assert tx-indexer reloads

go run . -tx-indexer -tx-indexer-log-level=warn
r

• Resetting via R key gnodev, assert tx-indexer reloads

go run . -tx-indexer -tx-indexer-log-level=warn
R

Basic checks on tx-indexer endpoints

• getBlockFilter

curl -s -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" --data '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","method":"newBlockFilter","params":[],"id":1}' http://localhost:8546 | jq
====
200 OK
{
   "result": "1a62ef69-3283-40cf-bc68-005583ea585d",
   "jsonrpc": "2.0",
    "id": 1
}

• getFilterChanges

curl -s -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" --data '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","method":"getFilterChanges","params":["1a62ef69-3283-40cf-bc68-005583ea585d"],"id":1}' http://localhost:8546 | jq '
====
200 OK
{
   "result": [  "Cgt2MS4wLjAtcmMuMBIDZGV2GMwiIgwI7bfSvwYQoOLgmAJCSAogVePu36+30Bk77WS65j6fZhKudE5HLaSvy1yFbg+M2HUSJAgCEiCbAywr9IYLvukOuq8qV6Az7nKnGVR7C68M0AEAshl8X0ogbtwydtDjEqcZdycLqDLZVmpB4dauJ2KCOUcLsqwtpX5aIMX8AbmpUwYsVOi6e6ca0apNw5+eGF4K6AC/De+rp4q5YiDF/AG5qVMGLFToununGtGqTcOfnhheCugAvw3vq6eKuWogJlhOjaEgGjNB6JJbY32cyWC0QYWsF40ch1R+A7Wg+vByIJmAhI1EraXYaZ7mH60kshtgNGingSBMlZOnmFOjQqSVggEoZzFocGF5NG5rcDJtMG0wNHNlYXZzcWVlZm5nZWF0bWRoc3Fncnhhdw==",
      ......omitted due to size
  ]
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
   "id": 1
}

[Gno2D2]

🛠 PR Checks Summary

🔴 Pending initial approval by a review team member, or review from tech-staff

Manual Checks (for Reviewers):

• IGNORE the bot requirements for this PR (force green CI check)
• The pull request description provides enough details

Read More

🤖 This bot helps streamline PR reviews by verifying automated checks and providing guidance for contributors and reviewers.

✅ Automated Checks (for Contributors):

🟢 Maintainers must be able to edit this pull request (more info)
🔴 Pending initial approval by a review team member, or review from tech-staff

☑️ Contributor Actions:

1. Fix any issues flagged by automated checks.
2. Follow the Contributor Checklist to ensure your PR is ready for review.
   • Add new tests, or document why they are unnecessary.
   • Provide clear examples/screenshots, if necessary.
   • Update documentation, if required.
   • Ensure no breaking changes, or include BREAKING CHANGE notes.
   • Link related issues/PRs, where applicable.

☑️ Reviewer Actions:

1. Complete manual checks for the PR, including the guidelines and additional checks if applicable.

📚 Resources:

• Report a bug with the bot.
• View the bot’s configuration file.

Debug

Automated Checks

Maintainers must be able to edit this pull request (more info)

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 And
    ├── 🟢 The base branch matches this pattern: ^master$
    └── 🟢 The pull request was created from a fork (head branch repo: itsHabib/gno)

Then

🟢 Requirement satisfied
└── 🟢 Maintainer can modify this pull request

Pending initial approval by a review team member, or review from tech-staff

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 And
    ├── 🟢 The base branch matches this pattern: ^master$
    └── 🟢 Not (🔴 Pull request author is a member of the team: tech-staff)

Then

🔴 Requirement not satisfied
└── 🔴 If
    ├── 🔴 Condition
    │   └── 🔴 Or
    │       ├── 🔴 At least 1 user(s) of the organization reviewed the pull request (with state "APPROVED")
    │       ├── 🔴 At least 1 user(s) of the team tech-staff reviewed pull request
    │       └── 🔴 This pull request is a draft
    └── 🔴 Else
        └── 🔴 And
            ├── 🟢 This label is applied to pull request: review/triage-pending
            └── 🔴 On no pull request

Manual Checks

**IGNORE** the bot requirements for this PR (force green CI check)

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 On every pull request

Can be checked by

• Any user with comment edit permission

The pull request description provides enough details

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 And
    ├── 🟢 Not (🔴 Pull request author is a member of the team: core-contributors)
    └── 🟢 Not (🔴 Pull request author is user: dependabot[bot])

Can be checked by

• team core-contributors

[itsHabib]

👋 hey all, couple comments/questions:

• I do think that although this has worked for my basic tests, it would be ideal if tx-indexer was part of the monorepo or exposed some pkg that we can import and do a txindexer.Start() etc that tx-indexer owned without having to worry about trying to do this via exec.Cmd as ive done.
• The PR is already getting relatively large so i held off on things like unit tests and such as im not sure what the process is/standards for open source w.r.t sub tickets and how big a PR can be. I am happy to add some tests but also wanted to get feedback first to see if im way off the mark here or not before doing more
• Any other types of validation that I can do/edge cases i can test out to make sure this works as expected for the interested parties?

[jefft0]

@itsHabib , thanks for working on issue #2082 . As we commented, tx-indexer is now working properly, so this is not urgent. On that issue, we can discuss if gnodev should start tx-indexer as a convenience.

[leohhhn]

If the indexer is properly integrated with gnodev- meaning it supports reloading, and the indexer service reloads accordingly and has clean, proper data, then this would be a step towards enabling the indexer on the Portal Loop. This feature probably shouldn't be on by default, but under gnodev staging as a flag - cc @gfanton @moul

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!