This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 6, 2020. It is now read-only.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I don't like loosening it completely. I think the RPC and the spec should be as specific as possible, we'll run into plenty of issues if we allow leniency of parameters (like developers wondering why a parameter doesn't work if they make a typo or the parameter is not supported).
IMHO The spec just not got properly updated after
newBlockshas been renamed tonewHeads,includeTransactionsparamteter in examples doesn't make much sense in case of headers-only subscription.Having said that, I'm ok with allowing:
eth_subscribe('newHeads')andeth_subscribe('newHeads', {})call (optional options argument that we might add in the future), but noteth_subscribe('newHeads', {'anything': true}).@tjade273 what do you think?
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.
Makes sense, I'll tweak it