Replace timestamp with block number #866
Conversation
|
💛 |
| use std::time::{Duration, UNIX_EPOCH}; | ||
| UNIX_EPOCH + Duration::from_secs(js_sys::Date::now() as u64) | ||
| } | ||
| #[cfg(not(feature = "full-client-wasm"))] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah good that we no longer need to worry about the system clock on different platforms here
| @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ use crate::{ | |||
| #[derive(Debug, Deserialize, Serialize, Clone)] | |||
| pub struct Keys { | |||
| pub keys: Vec<String>, | |||
| pub timestamp: SystemTime, | |||
| pub block_number: BlockNumber, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah so we also change this in the sync_kvdb payload
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ya cuz it shares the check_stale function but I wouldn't worry to much, gonna need a whole re write when we go to threshold
| let block_difference = if chain_block_number > user_block_number { | ||
| chain_block_number.checked_sub(user_block_number).ok_or(ValidationErr::StaleMessage)? | ||
| } else { | ||
| user_block_number.checked_sub(chain_block_number).ok_or(ValidationErr::StaleMessage)? | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can use u32::abs_diff here to simplify this logic
| @@ -206,7 +208,7 @@ async fn test_sync_kvdb() { | |||
| assert_eq!(result_4.status(), 500); | |||
| assert_eq!(result_4.text().await.unwrap(), "Forbidden Key"); | |||
|
|
|||
| keys.timestamp = keys.timestamp.checked_sub(TIME_BUFFER).unwrap(); | |||
| keys.block_number = keys.block_number + BLOCK_BUFFER + 10; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we add an extra 10 here if we already have the BLOCK_BUFFER?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I need a plus 1 to put it over the buffer, and idk I just made it 10
| @@ -235,6 +242,7 @@ pub async fn get_and_store_values( | |||
| recip_server_info: ServerInfo<subxt::utils::AccountId32>, | |||
| signer: &PairSigner<EntropyConfig, sr25519::Pair>, | |||
| x25519_secret: &StaticSecret, | |||
| rpc: &LegacyRpcMethods<EntropyConfig>, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would be nice to not need to pass this in, but 🤷♂️
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ya but wouldn't worry about it, all this is gonna need a re write when we go to threshold
Closes #857