-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 83
Expose a stream with indexer state changes #352
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
Expose a stream with indexer state changes #352
Conversation
…complete event for now)
|
@desfero is attempting to deploy a commit to the joshaavecom's projects Team on Vercel. A member of the Team first needs to authorize it. |
| .filter(|c| c.details.iter().any(|p| p.end_block.is_none())) | ||
| .count() | ||
| > 0 | ||
| self.all_contracts().iter().any(|c| c.details.iter().any(|p| p.end_block.is_none())) |
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.
just nit, we don't need to loop through all values in the array
| ) | ||
| .await | ||
| .map_err(StartRindexerError::CouldNotStartIndexing)?; | ||
| if manifest.has_any_contracts_live_indexing() { |
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 fixes the issue that was affecting historical indexing when there was no relationship
// we index all the historic data first before then applying FKs
!relationships.is_empty(),
Now historical indexing duration log is always there which makes codebase more cohesive
c1d3317 to
98cc98e
Compare
joshstevens19
left a comment
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.
changelog rest looks good!
No description provided.