feat(sdk): Add support for Ordexer#107
Conversation
danadi7
requested review from
Nanosync,
kevzzsk and
thedoublejay
as code owners
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
Co-authored-by: Benedict Pak <10258208+Nanosync@users.noreply.github.com>
| export type DataSourceType = JsonRpcDatasource | OrdexerDatasource; | ||
|
|
||
| export const DataSource = { | ||
| Jsonrpc: JsonRpcDatasource, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it would be better to change it to ordit instead of Jsonrpc.
| }, | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| export const ORDEXER_AUTH_TOKEN = ""; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can you make this configuration customizable to the client?, maybe put the config/opts when user defining the datasource
| const response: GetInscriptionResponse = await ordexer[this.network].get( | ||
| `/ordinals/inscriptions/${id}`, | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| const mediaContent: string = await this.getInscriptionContent({ id }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| const response: GetInscriptionResponse = await ordexer[this.network].get( | |
| `/ordinals/inscriptions/${id}`, | |
| ); | |
| const mediaContent: string = await this.getInscriptionContent({ id }); | |
| const [response, mediaContent] = await Promise.all([ | |
| ordexer[this.network].get( | |
| `/ordinals/inscriptions/${id}`, | |
| ) as Promise<GetInscriptionResponse>, | |
| this.getInscriptionContent({ id }), | |
| ]); | |
| mediaType: inscription.mediaType ?? "", | ||
| mediaSize: inscription.mediaSize, | ||
| mediaContent: await this.getInscriptionContent({ | ||
| id: inscription.inscriptionId, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the throttle limit would be exceeded if there are too many requests, and also network requests are doubling. i think it's better to include mediaContentBase64 in the ordexer API
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm thinking if we actually need this here, since this is GetTransaction. I'm not sure if mediaContent would be needed in this case.
| * Hex-encoded witness data | ||
| */ | ||
| txinwitness: string[]; | ||
| txinwitness?: string[]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i think it's better to make empty array on ordexer side instead of changing the type definition
| * Is spent (Ordit RPC), can be Outpoint `{txid}:{vout}`, or `false` if not spent | ||
| */ | ||
| spent: string | false; | ||
| spent: boolean; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hmm, i think ordexer also should return {txid}:{vout} | false, is the ordit/client(ordzaar) aware about this changes?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On Ordit, it's string | false but it's always a boolean, that is set to true when the output is spent.
Setting to true: https://github.com/sadoprotocol/ordit/blob/54be99d660e9995d14c14f60e61295ee1a3f16b9/src/Database/Output/Methods.ts#L232
DB Query:
https://github.com/sadoprotocol/ordit/blob/54be99d660e9995d14c14f60e61295ee1a3f16b9/src/Database/Output/Utilities.ts#L6
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On Ordexer, the schema stores it as a boolean: https://github.com/ordzaar/ordexer/blob/29a2424d50e6da02c6d40ef9f2da297a139c1104/packages/db/prisma/schema.prisma#L36
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So changing it here just makes it consistent across Ordit, Ordexer, and Ordit SDK.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
need to check whether the client has used the spent string or not, this transaction API will return string | boolean
https://github.com/sadoprotocol/ordit/blob/main/src/Utilities/Transaction.ts#L69C45-L69C59
maybe add spentVin for in the ordexer response if that necessary, and parse the response in sdk client without changing the types
| import { Params, removeTrailingSlash } from "../utils"; | ||
|
|
||
| class OrdexerApi { | ||
| constructor(readonly url: string) {} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
how about accepting apiKey as a param here?
(readonly url: string, params: { apiKey: string })
| baseURL: this.url, | ||
| url: endpoint, | ||
| headers: { | ||
| Authorization: `Bearer ${ORDEXER_AUTH_TOKEN}`, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe accept auth token from constructor
3 participants
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) does this PR fixes?:
Fixes #
Additional comments?: