[indexer-alt] expose mapping from cp to tx or epoch interval in indexer-alt-framework for pruners if needed

[wlmyng]

Description

With the cp_sequence_numbers table, pruner tasks that need information beyond the pruner checkpoint range can depend on the table for the corresponding interval. A pruner task can now call tx_interval or epoch_interval, and will throw an anyhow error if the mapping for the checkpoint cannot be retrieved.

Test plan

How did you test the new or updated feature?

---

Release notes

Check each box that your changes affect. If none of the boxes relate to your changes, release notes aren't required.

For each box you select, include information after the relevant heading that describes the impact of your changes that a user might notice and any actions they must take to implement updates.

• Protocol:
• Nodes (Validators and Full nodes):
• Indexer:
• JSON-RPC:
• GraphQL:
• CLI:
• Rust SDK:
• REST API:

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
sui-docs	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Dec 26, 2024 5:13pm

3 Skipped Deployments

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
multisig-toolkit	⬜️ Ignored (Inspect)	Visit Preview		Dec 26, 2024 5:13pm
sui-kiosk	⬜️ Ignored (Inspect)	Visit Preview		Dec 26, 2024 5:13pm
sui-typescript-docs	⬜️ Ignored (Inspect)	Visit Preview		Dec 26, 2024 5:13pm

[amnn]

from_cp == to_cp is a valid case where this slice pattern would not match.

[amnn]

I think the simplest way to structure this code is to query using eq_any and then scan the results to find a match for each of from_cp and to_cp, something like the following, in the case of tx_interval:

let results: Vec<(i64, i64)> = cp_sequence_numbers::table
    .select((cp_sequence_numbers::cp_sequence_number, cp_sequence_numbers::tx_lo))
    .filter(cp_sequence_numbers::cp_sequence_number.eq_any([from_cp as i64, to_cp as i64])
    .load(conn)
    .await?;

let Some(from_tx) = results.iter().find_map(|(cp, tx)| (cp == from_cp).then(tx)) else {
    bail!("Could not find tx sequence number for checkpoint {from_cp}");
};

let Some(to_tx) = results.iter().find_map(|(cp, tx)| (cp == to_cp).then(tx)) else {
    bail!("Could not find tx sequence number for checkpoint {to_cp}"); 
};

Ok((from_tx..to_tx))

This also means you're left with only one error case, which further justifies simplifying the error story!

[wlmyng]

Btw, in what scenario would from_cp == to_cp be a valid case?

watermark.next_chunk returns to as (self.pruner_hi + size).min(self.reader_lo). pruner_hi and reader_lo should not be the same value, and size wouldn't make sense as a non-positive integer

[wlmyng]

i suppose from == to is possible when we update pruner_hi on the pruning side before the committing side gets to update reader_lo

In that case though, it seems to be confusing to allow the pruning code to proceed since we expect [from_cp, to_cp)