feat: updated infra privacy to support privacy set up #56
Conversation
infrastructure/nomad/vars.yml
Outdated
| @@ -7,6 +7,11 @@ server_common_name: "mev-commit_{{ env }}.mev-commit.primev.xyz" | |||
| tls_crt_file: "{{ certificates_dir }}/{{ server_common_name }}.crt" | |||
| tls_key_file: "{{ private_keys_dir }}/{{ server_common_name }}.key" | |||
| tls_ca_crt_file: "{{ ca_certificates_dir }}/ca-{{ server_common_name }}.crt" | |||
| preconf_contract_address: "0x2Aff805aBdF1Fe79AfcF8B3a9B4B45ECcD6b6D6e" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should avoid introducing another place that these addresses are hardcoded, and use one or the other. See https://github.com/primevprotocol/monorepo/blob/main/contracts-abi/config/testnet.go
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree with @shaspitz
We should not hard-code the contract addresses for the testnet setup. We should have this mechanism for the devnet setup as we may deploy new set of contracts and they have to be tested. Not sure how to manage this with nomad though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Got rid of hard-code addresses in nomad script
| @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ | |||
| - name: Deploy | Nomad jobs | |||
| ansible.builtin.shell: | | |||
| nomad run {{ ansible_env.HOME }}/{{ env }}/{{ job.name }}.nomad | |||
| [ "{{ job.name }}" = "deploy-contracts" ] && sleep 180 || true | |||
| [ "{{ job.name }}" = "deploy-contracts" ] && sleep 240 || true | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Curious why this sleep time needed to be increased?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
180s were not enough, but with 240s it's more reliable; contracts have enough time to be deployed with that timing.
| @@ -86,10 +80,8 @@ job "{{ job.name }}" { | |||
| ${EMULATOR_BINARY} \ | |||
| -server-addr "${EMULATOR_IP_PORT}" \ | |||
| {% if job.target_type == 'bidder' %} | |||
| -rpc-addr "${EMULATOR_SETTLEMENT_RPC_ENDPOINT}" \ | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So the emulator was previously (incorrectly) querying the mev-commit chain instead of L1?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, we found out this with Alok
No description provided.