-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 239
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Extract client code in send_transaction_service into a new structure #3423
Extract client code in send_transaction_service into a new structure #3423
Conversation
If this PR represents a change to the public RPC API:
Thank you for keeping the RPC clients in sync with the server API @KirillLykov. |
Sounds wrong, I haven't changed any rpc calls. For rpc the only thing that has changed is probably passing |
Also introduce TransactionClient, but don't use it in this commit.
73778af
to
213aa75
Compare
Backports to the beta branch are to be avoided unless absolutely necessary for fixing bugs, security issues, and perf regressions. Changes intended for backport should be structured such that a minimum effective diff can be committed separately from any refactoring, plumbing, cleanup, etc that are not strictly necessary to achieve the goal. Any of the latter should go only into master and ride the normal stabilization schedule. Exceptions include CI/metrics changes, CLI improvements and documentation updates on a case by case basis. |
@joncinque Do you think that this warning makes sense for these changes: #3423 (comment) ? This PR looks pretty innocent to me but would like to double check |
This is perfectly safe -- that rule is being triggered due to the change in |
Problem
In order to be able to use new client code in the
SendTransactionService
(see #3444), I need to wrap network-related code with the new structureConnectionCacheClient
.Summary of Changes
To extract network code into a new structure, I had to move some auxiliary code into separate files.
Beside of that, changes are pretty minimal and I deliberately haven't tried to optimize existing code to keep changes minimal. It just does almost exactly the same as the old one.