chore(l1): Migrate to Alloy #240
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
refcell
added
A-l1
refcell
force-pushed
the
refcell/chore/l1-alloy-port
branch
from
6a2039f to
56677e7
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
Migrates the
l1module to Alloy.Two main concerns with this pr as it stands. Currently removed retrying from the l1 chain watcher provider since the
RetryClientpreviously used is fromethersand I'm not seeing a good alternative. It also seems that thereqwest::ClientBuilderdoes not offer a retry policy.The second concern is that the rpc
Logtype returned from the alloy provider does not hydrate the block information needed to construct the user deposit information. As in, it is missing thel1 block number,l1 block hash, andlog index(within the block). As a work around, I've modified the log fetching to query each block's log set at a time so we can hydrate this information ourselves (assuming logs are returned in their canonical block ordering from the provider). It would be much more efficient for the provider to hydrate this data such that we can batch rpc requests. Especially since we currently set the range to be 1000 blocks starting at the provided block number.Metadata
Fixes #233