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

Transaction filter #5

Merged
merged 21 commits into from
Apr 8, 2024
Merged

Transaction filter #5

merged 21 commits into from
Apr 8, 2024

Conversation

notJoon
Copy link
Member

@notJoon notJoon commented Jan 24, 2024

Description

Created a transaction filter. The structure is largely similar to a block filter since it was referenced, but it is designed to enable search for each data using TxResult.

Additionally, I utilized the method chaining to implement a query-like search. This allows the application of complex filtering criteria in a simplified manner.

Example Usage

filteredTxResults := NewTxFilter().
    Height(100).
    GasUsed(500, 1000).
    Apply()

f.ClearConditions()

@notJoon notJoon changed the title [WIP] transaction filter Transaction filter Jan 25, 2024
@notJoon notJoon marked this pull request as ready for review January 25, 2024 06:21
@notJoon notJoon requested a review from a team as a code owner January 25, 2024 06:21
@notJoon notJoon requested a review from zivkovicmilos January 29, 2024 03:29
@zivkovicmilos
Copy link
Member

Hey @notJoon,

Thank you for the PR 🙏

I apologize for the late reply on this, it slipped through my notifications.
I'll take a look at the PR soon and give feedback, I have a feeling we can improve it just by skimming through

@ajnavarro
Copy link
Collaborator

I think we can avoid applying filters with elements on memory and do it directly using pebbleDB and their properties to iterate through keys in order.

Have a look at #12 . This approach can evolve even more adding secondary indexes. Not needed right now because queries take less than 20ms.

@notJoon
Copy link
Member Author

notJoon commented Feb 29, 2024

I think we can avoid applying filters with elements on memory and do it directly using pebbleDB and their properties to iterate through keys in order.

yeah, I think that would be much efficient than this filtering things.

Copy link
Member

@zivkovicmilos zivkovicmilos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for the contribution 🙏

Even though this PR doesn't contain connecting logic with the RPC layer, I see it as a good foundation for v1 of transaction filtering.

I've left some comments that should be addressed, I think we can greatly simplify the code

serve/filters/filter/tx.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
serve/filters/filter/tx.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
serve/filters/filter/tx_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
serve/filters/filter/tx.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
serve/filters/filter/tx.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
serve/filters/filter/tx.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
serve/filters/filter/tx.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
serve/filters/filter/tx.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
serve/filters/filter/tx.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@notJoon notJoon requested a review from zivkovicmilos March 28, 2024 07:00
Copy link
Member

@zivkovicmilos zivkovicmilos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good 💯

Thank you for addressing the comments 🙏

I've left a few suggestions, otherwise it looks good to go

serve/filters/filter/tx.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
serve/filters/filter/tx.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
serve/filters/filter/tx.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
serve/filters/filter/tx.go Show resolved Hide resolved
serve/filters/filter/tx.go Show resolved Hide resolved
serve/filters/filter/tx.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
serve/filters/filter/tx.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
serve/filters/filter/tx.go Show resolved Hide resolved
@zivkovicmilos
Copy link
Member

Hey @notJoon, what's the status on this PR? Did you get a chance to check the comments?

@notJoon
Copy link
Member Author

notJoon commented Apr 5, 2024

Hey @notJoon, what's the status on this PR? Did you get a chance to check the comments?

I apologize for the late reply. I should be able to get it all done by in this weekend.

@notJoon notJoon requested a review from zivkovicmilos April 8, 2024 05:15
Copy link
Member

@zivkovicmilos zivkovicmilos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'll open up a PR with @ajnavarro to connect this out with the RPC layer

Thank you for resolving the convos 🙏

@zivkovicmilos zivkovicmilos merged commit 2a70d0e into main Apr 8, 2024
3 checks passed
@zivkovicmilos zivkovicmilos deleted the tx-subscription-type branch April 8, 2024 08:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants