Failsafe when sending signed XCM transaction. #492
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for pendulum-pay ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The code looks good and makes sense to me 👍 I assume you are basing this on assumptions and we are not really sure if it will work, e.g. it could be that the callback we pass to signAndSend() doesn't even trigger after we encounter the error and the inBlockHash would never assign.
I'm fine if we merge this based on the assumption that it works. We'd only need to make sure that the happy path also still works as expected. Have you tested an AssetHub offramp with these changes already @gianfra-t?
| const event = xcmSentEvents | ||
| .map((event) => parseEventXcmSent(event)) | ||
| .filter((event) => { | ||
| return event.originAddress == address; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How confident are we that this comparison works as expected and we don't need to convert between different encodings of originAddress and address?
Issue #484.
The current theory for why this error happened, is that connection with Assethub's RPC dropped between sending the transaction and receiving the confirmation event, as it's hard to see another reason why this function could have failed, knowing the actual extrinsic did not.
Given that, we introduce a new error type
TransactionInclusionErrorfor the case where the transaction is included in a block, yet for some reasonsignAndSendfails.In this scenario, we will fetch all the events for the block once it is available, and attempt to find the relevant
XcmSentevent.