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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
MultiNode Integration: Initial Setup #824
MultiNode Integration: Initial Setup #824
Changes from 27 commits
60673aa
dc85772
e6683e6
1c68485
c44a6ce
64db86a
f7c1bc9
9e91b47
354dc50
60c3352
dcec343
8e2306b
b8d6755
2cb4d77
0b33b1f
6641bc9
d8d312c
aa3c068
3c3756e
7c8b55d
2521670
5b5cfd6
690f812
fd3823b
4bf96b7
c1b83a5
8aa39f6
0a016db
923f8ea
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
random thought: why are we using a signed int as a block number and not a uint? can block numbers be negative?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah I was thinking about this too. Will have to ask Dmytro if there's a reason when he's back, although I've never heard of negative block numbers. I was looking into using unsigned int in the Chainlink repo, but I didn't want to increase the scope of my MultiNode PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It seems to be a legacy from the initial iteration to create generalized components. I'm not sure why it was defined as int64.
I agree with Dylan that we should keep this change out of scope for the MultiNode PR
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
does this require WS support?
i thought we were slowly moving away from it because it's not reliable? we never implemented WS support because it had issues with memory leaks and instead went with a polling mechanism
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This does not require WS support and polling will be used for the implementation.