expose eligible_at and signed_at in data api #359
Conversation
|
Interesting, thanks! Reminds me a bit of #260 Will review in depth soon |
Codecov Report
❗ Your organization is not using the GitHub App Integration. As a result you may experience degraded service beginning May 15th. Please install the Github App Integration for your organization. Read more. @@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #359 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 19.18% 30.96% +11.77%
===========================================
Files 20 24 +4
Lines 3722 4819 +1097
===========================================
+ Hits 714 1492 +778
- Misses 2915 3125 +210
- Partials 93 202 +109
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
|
yeah #260 was definitely a partial inspiration for some of the structure/implementation |
|
@metachris wanted to see if you've had a chance to take a look at this |
| require.Equal(t, http.StatusOK, rr.Code) | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| t.Run("Accept valid slot", func(t *testing.T) { |
| @@ -74,3 +74,60 @@ func BuilderSubmissionEntryToBidTraceV2WithTimestampJSON(payload *BuilderBlockSu | |||
| }, | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| func DeliveredPayloadEntryToBidTraceV3JSON(payload *DeliveredPayloadEntry) common.BidTraceV3JSON { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it'll be great if there's tests for these for json marshal and unmarshalling
|
Asking for a bit of patience, as we're working on other important PRs to get merged first (in particular #380) |
|
@rajivpo could you please rebase? |
|
yes will get this done shortly |
|
something went wrong with this rebase, it now has 45 commits and a ton of changes 🤔 |
metachris
force-pushed
the
main
branch
2 times, most recently
from
18524f1
to
6a4f5da
Compare
📝 Summary
Exposes
eligible_atandsigned_atvia data api⛱ Motivation and Context
The two relevant timestamps were captured and added in #301. For research purposes, it would be convenient to expose these as part of
builder_blocks_receivedandproposer_payload_delivered. I have opted for providing the millisecond timestamps as milliseconds should be the roughly the relevant timeframe for sim and is aligned with the existingtimestamp_msfield inBidTraceV2WithTimestampJSON. Additionally, tests for/relay/v1/data/bidtraces/builder_blocks_receivedhave been added.This is definitely not the cleanest implementation, so any and all feedback is appreciated!
📚 References
#301
#260 (edited to include)
✅ I have run these commands
make lintmake test-racego mod tidyCONTRIBUTING.md