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 transaction_hash query to module-transactions #1624

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 10, 2024

Conversation

iamacook
Copy link
Member

Summary

For role-based execution on the Web, it is necessary to query for module transactions via transaction hash. This is possible directly via the Transaction Service as the module-transactions endpoint accepts the transaction_hash query. However, we do not expose this on the Gateway.

As such, this add and forwards a transaction_hash query to the module-transactions endpoint.

Note: the clients also split the txId to fetch the moduleId of the transaction in question. We should ideally return this within the Transaction entity so that they need not reference our constructed ID. This would be better tackled in #1613, however.

Changes

  • Add transaction_hash query to module-transactions endpoint and propagate it to Transaction Service
  • Add txHash value to field of module transaction cache
  • Update tests accordingly

@iamacook iamacook self-assigned this Jun 10, 2024
@iamacook iamacook requested a review from a team as a code owner June 10, 2024 09:55
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jun 10, 2024

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9446277873

Details

  • 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage increased (+0.03%) to 92.731%

Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 9444680700: 0.03%
Covered Lines: 7127
Relevant Lines: 7385

💛 - Coveralls

@iamacook iamacook merged commit f8cf9d4 into main Jun 10, 2024
16 checks passed
@iamacook iamacook deleted the module-transaction-hash branch June 10, 2024 15:20
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants