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

Add transaction hash #37

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 19, 2023
Merged

Add transaction hash #37

merged 2 commits into from
Sep 19, 2023

Conversation

enjinabner
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@enjinabner enjinabner added the enhancement New feature or request label Sep 18, 2023
@enjinabner enjinabner self-assigned this Sep 18, 2023
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Sep 18, 2023

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and project coverage change: -0.18% ⚠️

Comparison is base (b7c1dd2) 96.98% compared to head (e69a8ce) 96.80%.

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master      #37      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     96.98%   96.80%   -0.18%     
  Complexity      499      499              
============================================
  Files            80       80              
  Lines          2220     2225       +5     
============================================
+ Hits           2153     2154       +1     
- Misses           67       71       +4     
Files Changed Coverage Δ
src/Events/BeamClaimPending.php 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/Listeners/UpdateClaimStatus.php 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

pawell67
pawell67 previously approved these changes Sep 18, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

@v16Studios v16Studios left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

While we're at it, should we add the on-chain transaction ID to the data as well? Transaction hashes are a little less reliable as they are purged from the node after about an hour, and as I understand it also aren't necessarily 100% unique per transaction/event, however the on-chain transaction ID is.

@enjinabner enjinabner merged commit d65ed4f into master Sep 19, 2023
6 checks passed
@enjinabner enjinabner deleted the feature/pla-994/add-txn-hash branch September 19, 2023 00:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants