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

Introduce the functionality of getting the list of blobs. #3084

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

MathieuDutSik
Copy link
Contributor

Motivation

It is a useful functionality for obtaining the list of storage blobs. We introduce it here.

Proposal

It is important to access the list of ChainIDs and BlobIDs from the command line. Accessing
the ChainIDs is more complicated than expected since we need to access the list of root keys
and the functionality is missing right now. So we limit ourselves to BlobIDs.

The BlobIDs are accessed through the find_keys_by_prefix. The problem is that the keys are
obtained from the serialization of the BaseKey. Therefore, in order to avoid leaking the inner
logic of the serialization into the code, we introduce a to_bytes function.

The BlobIDs access is added to the storage and also to the validator functionality in a
straightforward way.

Test Plan

A test has been added for the functionality. We only check for the BlobsIDs to be contained. We cannot
check for equality before

Release Plan

This functionality could be useful for operators on DevNet / TestNet.

Links

None.

@@ -434,6 +434,9 @@ pub enum ClientCommand {
chain_id: Option<ChainId>,
},

/// Show the list of BlobIds of the validator
Copy link
Contributor

@ma2bd ma2bd Jan 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we start by making the feature available only locally? (under the command database)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ok.

@MathieuDutSik
Copy link
Contributor Author

This PR is killed because the functionality is essentially used for debugging and putting it in the protocol is not great.
The replacement PR is #3161

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