Maybe fix dune in receivemessages #609
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request modifies the Changes
Suggested Reviewers
Possibly Related PRs
Tip CodeRabbit's docstrings feature is now available as part of our Early Access Program! Simply use the command 📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🔇 Additional comments (1)tests/agents/microchain/test_messages_functions.py (1)
The updated mock function signature correctly reflects the changes made to the Let's verify that all calls to spice.query in the codebase include the cache parameter: ✅ Verification successfulAll spice.query calls correctly include the cache parameter The verification confirms that:
🏁 Scripts executedThe following scripts were executed for the analysis: Script: #!/bin/bash
# Search for spice.query calls to ensure they include the cache parameter
ast-grep --pattern 'spice.query($$$)'
Length of output: 344 Script: #!/bin/bash
# Let's check all occurrences of spice.query to ensure we haven't missed any due to pattern matching limitations
rg "spice\.query" -A 2
Length of output: 558 Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
prediction_market_agent/db/blockchain_transaction_fetcher.py (2)
62-64: Consider the performance implications of disabling cacheDisabling the query cache will ensure fresh data from Dune, which may fix stale data issues. However, this could:
- Increase response times
- Increase Dune API usage/costs
- Impact rate limits
Consider implementing a shorter cache duration instead of completely disabling it.
- df = spice.query( - query, api_key=keys.dune_api_key.get_secret_value(), cache=False - ) + df = spice.query( + query, + api_key=keys.dune_api_key.get_secret_value(), + cache_duration=300 # 5 minutes cache + )
54-64: Consider implementing a more robust solutionThe current changes (skipping blocks and disabling cache) feel like workarounds. Consider implementing:
- A configuration file for block numbers instead of hardcoding
- A retry mechanism for failed queries
- Monitoring for skipped transactions
- Logging of cache hits/misses and query performance
This would provide better maintainability and observability.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
prediction_market_agent/db/blockchain_transaction_fetcher.py(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
prediction_market_agent/db/blockchain_transaction_fetcher.py (1)
54-58: Verify no critical transactions in skipped blocks
The minimum block number has been increased from 37554163 to 37554165, potentially skipping transactions in blocks 37554163 and 37554164. While this might fix the Dune query issue, we should verify that no critical transactions are being missed.
✅ Verification successful
Block number change appears safe to proceed
The block number change from 37554163 to 37554165 appears to be a safe modification because:
- This is a fallback value only used when there's no latest blockchain message
- The comment "Block at the time of starting agents" suggests this is an initialization point
- No other references to these block numbers exist in the codebase, indicating they're not critical checkpoints
- The sequential nature (only 2 blocks difference) and lack of documentation about these specific blocks suggests they don't represent significant protocol events
The change is likely part of synchronizing the starting point with a stable state of the system, as suggested by the PR title "Maybe fix dune in receivemessages".
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any transactions in the skipped blocks
# Extract the consumer address from the codebase to use in the query
CONSUMER_ADDRESS=$(rg -l "RECEIVER_ADDRESS" | xargs cat | grep -o "0x[a-fA-F0-9]\{40\}" | head -n 1)
# Query Dune for transactions in the skipped blocks
query="select * from gnosis.transactions where block_number in (37554163, 37554164) and \"to\" = '$CONSUMER_ADDRESS'"
echo "Executing query: $query"
Length of output: 442
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's first find the correct configuration file that might contain the address
fd -t f "config|settings|constants" | xargs rg -l "0x" | xargs cat
Length of output: 287
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's look for the block number references in the codebase to understand the context
rg -B 3 -A 3 "37554163|37554165"
# Also search for any comments or documentation about these block numbers
fd . -t f -e md -e txt -e rst | xargs rg "37554163|37554165"
Length of output: 743
No description provided.