Skip to content

Conversation

@pdp2121
Copy link
Collaborator

@pdp2121 pdp2121 commented Dec 19, 2024

High Level Overview of Change

Resolve: #278

Context of Change

Missing new amendments due to the change in rippled code structure to parse name:

Screenshot 2024-12-19 at 11 32 43 AM

Type of Change

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • Refactor (non-breaking change that only restructures code)
  • Tests (You added tests for code that already exists, or your new feature included in this PR)
  • Documentation Updates
  • Release

Before / After

Data should show up:

Screenshot 2024-12-19 at 11 58 52 AM

VHS is lacking tests at the moment. There will be a separate ticket to add comprehensive tests throughout the code

if ('result' in featureResponse) {
const feature = featureResponse.result[amendment_id]
amendmentIDs.set(amendment_id, {
name: feature.name,
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is there more that should be stored?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There are only these fields in feature, of which only name is useful for us.

enabled | Boolean | Whether this amendment is currently enabled in the latest ledger.

name | String | (May be omitted) The human-readable name for this amendment, if known.

supported | Boolean | Whether the server knows how to apply this amendment. If this field is set to false (the server does not know how to apply this amendment) and enabled is set to true (this amendment is enabled in the latest ledger), this amendment may cause your server to be amendment blocked.

@pdp2121 pdp2121 requested a review from ckniffen December 19, 2024 21:30
Copy link
Collaborator

@achowdhry-ripple achowdhry-ripple left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM -- for code readability would recommend differentiating between fetch methods and ones that actually set the cache as well, but logic looks solid otherwise

@pdp2121
Copy link
Collaborator Author

pdp2121 commented Dec 20, 2024

LGTM -- for code readability would recommend differentiating between fetch methods and ones that actually set the cache as well, but logic looks solid otherwise

Fixed that in the latest commit

@pdp2121 pdp2121 merged commit 66c023f into main Dec 23, 2024
4 checks passed
@pdp2121 pdp2121 deleted the use-feature-for-amendment-name branch December 23, 2024 17:10
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.

Use feature RPC to fetch amendments name

5 participants