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

Initialize storage on omni executor startup #3228

Open
wants to merge 14 commits into
base: dev
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

silva-fj
Copy link
Contributor

As topic, when starting the omni-executor it downloads the AccountStore from the parentchain and saves the in the storage.

Some modules have been reorganized for reuse.

@silva-fj silva-fj requested review from kziemianek, Kailai-Wang and a team January 10, 2025 11:15
Copy link

linear bot commented Jan 10, 2025

Copy link
Collaborator

@Kailai-Wang Kailai-Wang 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, thanks

edition.workspace = true

[dependencies]
executor-core = { path = "../../executor-core" }
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do you consider using workspace dep?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We probably should. I was just trying to be consistent with what we currently have. I'll update the dependencies 👍🏼

}

async fn init_account_store_storage(client: &SubxtClient<CustomConfig>) -> Result<(), ()> {
let storage_query = parentchain_api_interface::storage().omni_account().account_store_iter();
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There's no concept of storage proof right? Like we don't have to verify anything that we downloaded

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Well, it is still available in the legacy modules. The rpc method to get the proofs is there and some types to verify the values. Do you think we need to do this? As long as we connect the worker to a node that we trust its ok

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants