Add VirtualRelayer #5
Conversation
| requestsValue += requests[i].value; | ||
| bool success = _execute(requests[i], atomic); | ||
| if (!success) { | ||
| refundValue += requests[i].value; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In cases of failed operations we could emit some event too, so we can handle that off-chain
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could be but it's going to cost us more. I feel the event is not needed if the off-chain actions are idempotent (e.g. marking a tx as succeeded in the database twice should result in the same).
Any example of what should be handled off-chain? 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If I understand correctly, if a user sends a tx bundle, when one of the transactions failed and the rest succeeded, in our database the tx will look as succeeded.
So the end client would not know if whether some tx of the bundle failed or not, so I think that by using an event, they can detect if some transaction of the bundle failed and retry the transaction if needed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see what you mean. Having the transaction status in the database read from RPC is a constraint of the relayer in the current design, but the idea behind a smart contract VirtualRelayer is to change the relayer nonce from the protocol's (ie. EOA nonce) to this contract's nonce so that execution is parallelized.
In this scenario, changing the nonce implies replacing the RPC getNonce call and look to a getter in the virtual relayer getter to know whether the transaction succeeded or not.
No description provided.