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

omni-executor init #3122

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Oct 16, 2024
Merged

omni-executor init #3122

merged 13 commits into from
Oct 16, 2024

Conversation

kziemianek
Copy link
Member

Initial code for omni-executor offchain worker.

Adds:

  • Parentchain listener to track parentchain and execute intentions based on events
  • Ethereum intention executor to execute intentions on ethereum based chains
  • docker compose to run everything locally (ethereum node, litentry rococo node, omni-executor)
  • gramine manifest so service can be run inside tee on SGX hardware host

Copy link

linear bot commented Oct 9, 2024

@kziemianek kziemianek enabled auto-merge (squash) October 16, 2024 19:40
Copy link
Collaborator

@BillyWooo BillyWooo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Super! LGTM

@kziemianek kziemianek merged commit 8a65e5a into dev Oct 16, 2024
20 checks passed
@kziemianek kziemianek deleted the p-1095-omni-executor-poc branch October 16, 2024 21:11
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.

Thank you, generally the skeleton looks good

common/primitives/core/src/intention.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
/// in case of substrate chain it is BLOCK_NUM::EVENT_NUM
pub trait Checkpoint {
// determines whether checkpoint is a whole block or not
fn just_block_num(&self) -> bool;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I find just_block_num a bit confusing :D

Does it make sense to have a CheckPointType type?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I was thinking about it, but since it's trait we only assume there is something like 'block'.

The other improvement could look like this:

  • remove just_block_num
  • after restart always start syncing from get_block_num() - 1 but skip already processed events

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.

4 participants