transactionWatch: Remove the broadcast event #134
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Alexandru Vasile <[email protected]>
tomaka
approved these changes
Feb 13, 2024
Co-authored-by: Pierre Krieger <[email protected]>
josepot
approved these changes
Feb 13, 2024
jsdw
approved these changes
Feb 14, 2024
github-merge-queue bot
pushed a commit
to paritytech/polkadot-sdk
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 21, 2024
…h` (#3321) This PR backports the changes from the rpc-v2 spec: paritytech/json-rpc-interface-spec#134 The `Broadcasted` event has been removed: - it is hard to enforce a `Dropped { broadcasted: bool }` event in cases of a load-balancer being placed in front of an RPC server - when the server exists, it is impossible to guarantee this field if the server did not previously send a `Broadcasted` event - the number of peers reported by this event does not guarantee that peers are unique - the same peer can disconnect and reconnect, increasing this metric number - the number of peers that receive this transaction offers no guarantee about the transaction being included in the chain at a later time cc @paritytech/subxt-team --------- Signed-off-by: Alexandru Vasile <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: James Wilson <[email protected]>
bgallois
pushed a commit
to duniter/duniter-polkadot-sdk
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 25, 2024
…h` (paritytech#3321) This PR backports the changes from the rpc-v2 spec: paritytech/json-rpc-interface-spec#134 The `Broadcasted` event has been removed: - it is hard to enforce a `Dropped { broadcasted: bool }` event in cases of a load-balancer being placed in front of an RPC server - when the server exists, it is impossible to guarantee this field if the server did not previously send a `Broadcasted` event - the number of peers reported by this event does not guarantee that peers are unique - the same peer can disconnect and reconnect, increasing this metric number - the number of peers that receive this transaction offers no guarantee about the transaction being included in the chain at a later time cc @paritytech/subxt-team --------- Signed-off-by: Alexandru Vasile <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: James Wilson <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR removes the
Broadcastedevent from thetransactionWatchand thebroadcastedfield from theDroppedevent.The
Broadcastedevent was introduced to inform users about the transaction process.However, the number of peers it contains does not offer any strong guarantees about the uniqueness of those peers; or if the transaction could be later included in the chain by those peers.
Further, the
Broadcastedevent is hard to enforce by load balancers; in cases where the server goes down without sending aBroadcastedevent first.I would love to get your thoughts on this
Closes #132.
cc @paritytech/subxt-team