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

Add fetch: block, spend, block-height, block-hashes, stealth-hashes, merkle #453

Open
evoskuil opened this issue Mar 8, 2017 · 6 comments
Assignees

Comments

@evoskuil
Copy link
Member

evoskuil commented Mar 8, 2017

The server fetch-spend method is not getting tested, and is the only use of the huge spends store.

@evoskuil evoskuil added this to the 3.1 milestone Mar 8, 2017
@evoskuil evoskuil changed the title Add fetch-spend (or obsolete). Add fetch-spend. Apr 7, 2017
@evoskuil evoskuil changed the title Add fetch-spend. Add fetch: block, spend, block-height, block-hashes, stealth-hashes Apr 7, 2017
@evoskuil evoskuil modified the milestones: 4.0, 3.1 Apr 7, 2017
@evoskuil evoskuil changed the title Add fetch: block, spend, block-height, block-hashes, stealth-hashes Add fetch: block, spend, block-height, block-hashes, stealth-hashes, merkle May 14, 2017
@thecodefactory thecodefactory self-assigned this Oct 10, 2018
@thecodefactory
Copy link
Member

Fetch-block was completed in #600

I am looking at some of the others and so far have:

$ bx fetch-block-height 000000000003ba27aa200b1cecaad478d2b00432346c3f1f3986da1afd33e506
100000
$ bx fetch-block-hashes -s 000000000003ba27aa200b1cecaad478d2b00432346c3f1f3986da1afd33e506
hashes
{
    transaction_hash
    {
        hash 8c14f0db3df150123e6f3dbbf30f8b955a8249b62ac1d1ff16284aefa3d06d87
    }
    transaction_hash
    {
        hash fff2525b8931402dd09222c50775608f75787bd2b87e56995a7bdd30f79702c4
    }
    transaction_hash
    {
        hash 6359f0868171b1d194cbee1af2f16ea598ae8fad666d9b012c8ed2b79a236ec4
    }
    transaction_hash
    {
        hash e9a66845e05d5abc0ad04ec80f774a7e585c6e8db975962d069a522137b80c1d
    }
}

@evoskuil The output of the last command seems somehow not satisfying, or optimal. Any suggestions on improvement?

@evoskuil
Copy link
Member Author

This should be a JSON array of hashes.

@thecodefactory
Copy link
Member

thecodefactory commented Oct 10, 2018

This should be a JSON array of hashes.

Something like this? Already seems better to me ...

hashes
{
    transaction_hash 8c14f0db3df150123e6f3dbbf30f8b955a8249b62ac1d1ff16284aefa3d06d87
    transaction_hash fff2525b8931402dd09222c50775608f75787bd2b87e56995a7bdd30f79702c4
    transaction_hash 6359f0868171b1d194cbee1af2f16ea598ae8fad666d9b012c8ed2b79a236ec4
    transaction_hash e9a66845e05d5abc0ad04ec80f774a7e585c6e8db975962d069a522137b80c1d
}

EDIT: Actually, should probably invert (hashes for transaction_hashes, then replace transaction_hash with just hash)

@evoskuil
Copy link
Member Author

Yeah, maybe just “hash” for the elements.

@evoskuil
Copy link
Member Author

The array notation should be [] and without names I believe.

@evoskuil evoskuil removed this from the 4.0 milestone Jan 3, 2019
@evoskuil
Copy link
Member Author

evoskuil commented Mar 6, 2021

@thecodefactory can we close this?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants
@evoskuil @thecodefactory and others