Fix event decoding in cli + remove timeout in demos #507
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -531,8 +531,11 @@ fn send_request(matches: &ArgMatches<'_>, call: TrustedCallSigned) -> Option<Vec | |
| // send and watch extrinsic until block is executed | ||
| let block_hash = | ||
| _chain_api.send_extrinsic(xt.hex_encode(), XtStatus::InBlock).unwrap().unwrap(); | ||
| info!( | ||
| "Trusted call extrinsic sent and sucessfully included in parentchain block with hash {:?}.", | ||
| block_hash | ||
| ); | ||
| info!("Waiting for execution confirmation from enclave..."); | ||
| let (events_in, events_out) = channel(); | ||
| _chain_api.subscribe_events(events_in).unwrap(); | ||
|
|
||
|
|
@@ -541,19 +544,19 @@ fn send_request(matches: &ArgMatches<'_>, call: TrustedCallSigned) -> Option<Vec | |
| decoder.register_type_size::<Hash>("H256").unwrap(); | ||
|
|
||
| loop { | ||
| let ret: ProcessedParentchainBlockArgs = _chain_api | ||
| .wait_for_event::<ProcessedParentchainBlockArgs>( | ||
|
Comment on lines
+547
to
+548
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. So here we waited for
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. I'm honestly not 100% sure what the previous problem was, but I think it might have been partially fixed by cleaning up the Confirmations on the worker side th PR #501 and now fixing the Block listening event... But the tests pass now without a Timeout. Is that not convincing enough?
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. If they pass consistently, I am convinced. :D |
||
| TEEREX, | ||
| "ProcessedParentchainBlock", | ||
| Some(decoder.clone()), | ||
| &events_out, | ||
| ) | ||
| .unwrap(); | ||
| info!("Confirmation of ProcessedParentchainBlock received"); | ||
| debug!("Expected block Hash: {:?}", block_hash); | ||
| debug!("Confirmed stf block Hash: {:?}", ret.block_hash); | ||
| if ret.block_hash == block_hash { | ||
| return Some(ret.block_hash.encode()) | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
@@ -661,9 +664,10 @@ fn send_direct_request( | |
|
|
||
| #[allow(dead_code)] | ||
| #[derive(Decode)] | ||
| struct ProcessedParentchainBlockArgs { | ||
|
Comment on lines
-664
to
+667
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Small but significant change in how to read this code 😄 |
||
| signer: AccountId, | ||
| block_hash: H256, | ||
| merkle_root: H256, | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| fn listen(matches: &ArgMatches<'_>) { | ||
|
|
@@ -690,24 +694,23 @@ fn listen(matches: &ArgMatches<'_>) { | |
| let _events = Vec::<frame_system::EventRecord<Event, Hash>>::decode(&mut _er_enc); | ||
| blocks += 1; | ||
| match _events { | ||
| Ok(evts) => | ||
| for evr in &evts { | ||
| println!("decoded: phase {:?} event {:?}", evr.phase, evr.event); | ||
| match &evr.event { | ||
| Event::Balances(be) => { | ||
| println!(">>>>>>>>>> balances event: {:?}", be); | ||
| match &be { | ||
| pallet_balances::Event::Transfer(from, to, value) => { | ||
| println!("From: {:?}", from); | ||
| println!("To: {:?}", to); | ||
| println!("Value: {:?}", value); | ||
| }, | ||
| _ => { | ||
| debug!("ignoring unsupported balances event"); | ||
| }, | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| Event::Teerex(ee) => { | ||
| println!(">>>>>>>>>> integritee event: {:?}", ee); | ||
| count += 1; | ||
|
|
@@ -767,8 +770,7 @@ fn listen(matches: &ArgMatches<'_>) { | |
| }, | ||
| _ => debug!("ignoring unsupported module event: {:?}", evr.event), | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| Err(_) => error!("couldn't decode event record list"), | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
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.
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.
Removing the timeout means that we potentially wait forever? Or what was the motivation?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
Yes, that is true. But since this is used as a CI test, I think we should know if no fitting confirmation is issued by the parentchain.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
So my motiviation: Wait forever such that we know something is wrong.