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

Remove requirement of providing an explicit staking target #20

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 2, 2024

Conversation

drohit-cb
Copy link
Contributor

This PR helps remove the requirement to provide an explicit staking target (integrator contract address for ethereum partial staking and validator address for sol) while making staking api calls.

As we move to a self-service world, we want customers to be able to just come and stake to default staking targets i.e. default integration contracts on both Holesky and Mainnet in the case of Partial ETH staking and default coinbase validators on both Devnet and Mainnet in the case of sol staking.

As a result, we make the integrator contract address validator address an optional filed. When not set, the backend defaults that network's default staking target. For Partial ETH staking, customers that have worked with us to get a dedicated contract deployed, we default to their specific integrator contract address.

@drohit-cb drohit-cb force-pushed the remove_project_id_and_staking_target_requirement branch from 412405a to 5098d29 Compare May 2, 2024 19:15
@drohit-cb drohit-cb marked this pull request as ready for review May 2, 2024 19:19
@drohit-cb drohit-cb requested review from marcin-cb and ProfMoo May 2, 2024 19:19
@@ -153,6 +180,28 @@ client.Ethereum.listRewards(filter).then((resp) => {

</details>

## Build
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe we can make a Contributing.md and link that doc here? That way, someone who is trying to build/contribute to this codebase can refer to a different file than someone trying to use it. My preference would be to keep the top-level README as concise as possible.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, lets do that in a separate PR

examples/ethereum/create-workflow.ts Show resolved Hide resolved
src/client/staking-client.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link

@deangalvin-cb deangalvin-cb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Lets remove projects from here, no need to anyone to have to worry about them!

@drohit-cb drohit-cb requested review from deangalvin-cb and ProfMoo May 2, 2024 19:35
Copy link
Contributor

@ProfMoo ProfMoo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@drohit-cb drohit-cb merged commit fc03ea1 into main May 2, 2024
3 checks passed
@drohit-cb drohit-cb deleted the remove_project_id_and_staking_target_requirement branch May 2, 2024 19:37
drohit-cb added a commit to coinbase/staking-client-library-go that referenced this pull request May 2, 2024
This PR is counterpart to
coinbase/staking-client-library-ts#20

It helps remove the requirement to provide an explicit staking target
(integrator contract address for ethereum partial staking and validator
address for sol) while making staking api calls.

As we move to a self-service world, we want customers to be able to just
come and stake to default staking targets i.e. default integration
contracts on both Holesky and Mainnet in the case of Partial ETH staking
and default coinbase validators on both Devnet and Mainnet in the case
of sol staking.

As a result, we have updated the examples to not take integrator
contract or validator address as required inputs.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants