Skip to content
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

docs: update api docs for queue-tx #40

Closed
wants to merge 7 commits into from

Conversation

Bobinstein
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

Added Admin enpoint docs into the Open-API configuration
Added summarys and descriptions to all endpoints currently covered in Open-api docs.
added install-ytt.sh to gitattributes, added universal line to catch all .sh files and ensure proper line endings when cloned to windows machines.
summary: Prioritize a transaction in the queue.
description: Stage a specific TX ID as priority for your Gateway to locate and index.
summary: Prioritize a transaction or bundle in the queue.
description: Stage a specific TX ID as priority for your Gateway to locate and index. This can be any L1 transaction, or bundle if your Gateway is configured to unbundle and index.
Copy link
Collaborator

@djwhitt djwhitt Aug 31, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I worry this will be confusing since you can't actually queue a nested bundle using this endpoint. Maybe we should keep the original wording, but add something like "this will trigger bundle processing if the transaction is a bundle".

@@ -719,7 +719,7 @@ paths:
id:
type: string
pattern: '^[0-9a-zA-Z_-]{43}$'
description: TX ID of the transaction you would like to prioritize.
description: TX ID of the transaction or bundle you would like to prioritize.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We should keep the original wording on this one. It must be a TX ID. An ID for a nested bundle wouldn't work.

@djwhitt
Copy link
Collaborator

djwhitt commented Aug 31, 2023

Looks like there are rebase conflicts. I'll sort those out and merge in a bit.

@djwhitt
Copy link
Collaborator

djwhitt commented Sep 1, 2023

Integrated this by cherry picking off the branch to avoid rebase conflicts.

@djwhitt djwhitt closed this Sep 1, 2023
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.

2 participants