feat_: RPC providers detailed statuses #5923 #5924
Open
+3,271
−111
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
Jenkins BuildsClick to see older builds (72)
|
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #5924 +/- ##
============================================
- Coverage 47.02% 10.54% -36.48%
============================================
Files 832 832
Lines 137725 137070 -655
============================================
- Hits 64763 14459 -50304
- Misses 65429 120751 +55322
+ Partials 7533 1860 -5673
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
friofry
changed the title
friofry
changed the title
friofry
force-pushed
the
ab/issue-5923-rpc-status
branch
from
ac6650f
to
5164e3d
Compare
saledjenic
approved these changes
Oct 8, 2024
|
|
||
| // Subscribe allows providers to receive notifications about changes. | ||
| func (p *ProvidersHealthManager) Subscribe() chan struct{} { | ||
| p.mu.Lock() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If p.mu is used to guard p. aggregator could we use another mutex to guard p. subscribers only?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it shouldn't be a problem to protect the whole struct state with the same mutext, unless there is frequent access to Update and Subscribe methods at the same time.
Ideally we should not use 2 mutexes in the same struct to avoid unintentional deadlocks. Otherwise we have to ensure consistent locking order. Or I can use a sync.Map for subscribers
| // Subscribe allows clients to receive notifications about changes. | ||
| func (b *BlockchainHealthManager) Subscribe() chan struct{} { | ||
| ch := make(chan struct{}, 1) | ||
| b.mu.Lock() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The same here, does it make sense to have separate mutex for subscribers?
friofry
force-pushed
the
ab/issue-5923-rpc-status
branch
14 times, most recently
from
b0651df
to
cd640b3
Compare
friofry
force-pushed
the
ab/issue-5923-rpc-status
branch
from
cd640b3
to
eb10b20
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.
PR Summary:
This PR introduces a new RPC provider health monitor, as discussed here. It's moved to a separate PR without changing existing logic (will be introduced as a separate PR)
please read before review
1st commit - healthmanager
provider_health_managerss and sends updates.2nd commit - integration
provider_health_managerblockchain_health_managerand sends a new event to the wallet feed on every updateImportant changes:
Usage:
BlockchainHealthManagerwithNewBlockchainHealthManager()ProviderHealthManagerfor each chain viaNewProvidersHealthManager(chainID)ProvidersHealthManagerwithBlockchainHealthManager::RegisterProvidersHealthManagerProvidersHealthManager::Update()BlockchainHealthManager::Subscribe()and get status fromGetFullStatus()BlockchainHealthManager::Stop()Closes #5923