Improve rpc errors logging #6362
Conversation
Jenkins BuildsClick to see older builds (8)
|
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // NewProviderStatus processes ProviderCallStatus and returns a new ProviderStatus. | ||
| func NewProviderStatus(res ProviderCallStatus) ProviderStatus { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This method was only used in tests.
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| // CreateEthClientFromProvider creates an Ethereum RPC client from the given RpcProvider. | ||
| func CreateEthClientFromProvider(provider params.RpcProvider, rpcUserAgentName string) (*rpc.Client, error) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This function is extracted from rpc/client.go to have a clear way of creating rpc.Client from RpcProvider.
| @@ -15,32 +17,77 @@ import ( | |||
| type RPSLimitedEthClientInterface interface { | |||
| EthClientInterface | |||
| GetLimiter() *rpclimiter.RPCRpsLimiter | |||
| GetName() string | |||
| CopyWithName(name string) RPSLimitedEthClientInterface | |||
| GetCircuitName() string | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Name was always a circuit name, so renamed to avoid ambiguity.
Multiple providers can share the same circuit, hence 2 properties Circuit and Provider.
| return NewRPSLimitedEthClient(c.rpcClient, c.limiter, circuitName, c.providerName) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (c *RPSLimitedEthClient) ExecuteWithRPSLimit(f func(client EthClientInterface) (interface{}, error)) (interface{}, error) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Extracted this function from rpc/chain/client.go as this logic is more related to RpsLimitedEthClient than chain client.
| @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ func (a *Aggregator) Update(providerStatus rpcstatus.ProviderStatus) { | |||
| // Update existing provider status or add a new provider. | |||
| if ps, exists := a.providerStatuses[providerStatus.Name]; exists { | |||
| ps.Status = providerStatus.Status | |||
| ps.ChainID = providerStatus.ChainID | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Isn't this layer supposed to be chainID-agnostic? (as in, we don't deal with chainIDs with market providers, but we do once we go into a more specific layer of RPC/collectibles providers)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh you just removed the chainID? If it is useful for logging purposes we can surely add it in some more specialized form of Aggregator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On second thought, I realised that it's OK to remove chainID from the provider state because we have chainID as a key in the states map
While debugging status-im/status-mobile#22155 I needed more information in the logs.
So this PR addresses 2 issues:
Changes:
Closes #6266