Fix BSC RPC error: "exceed maximum block range" #541
Conversation
| indexed: true, | ||
| name: 'messageId', | ||
| type: 'bytes32' | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why did you modify this ABI?
It is a legacy ABI from the older version of AMB, where events had different signatures:
UserRequestForSignature(bytes)instead ofUserRequestForSignature(bytes32,bytes)UserRequestForAffirmation(bytes)instead ofUserRequestForAffirmation(bytes32,bytes)
Since these signatures are already present in history of the production bridge, we should account for both types of events.
| } | ||
| }) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| async function getPastEvents(contract, options) { | ||
| if (MONITOR_CACHE_EVENTS !== 'true') { | ||
| return commonGetPastEvents(contract, options) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need to use getPastEventsWithAPIFallback here?
| url.searchParams.append('toBlock', options.toBlock || 'latest') | ||
| url.searchParams.append('topic0', web3.eth.abi.encodeEventSignature(abi)) | ||
|
|
||
| const logs = await fetch(url).then(res => res.json()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
From the Etherscan API docs: For performance & security considerations, only the first 1000 results are return. So please narrow down the filter parameters.
Seems that we need to request events in batches by using some sort of pagination logic.
|
@LyzeOfKiel @k1rill-fedoseev what do you think if the graph on BSC is used instead of Etherscan API? |
Closes #538