Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Investigate if a GetterClient still makes sense #432

Open
haerdib opened this issue Jan 10, 2023 · 0 comments
Open

Investigate if a GetterClient still makes sense #432

haerdib opened this issue Jan 10, 2023 · 0 comments
Labels
F7-enhancement Enhances an already existing functionality Q3-substantial

Comments

@haerdib
Copy link
Contributor

haerdib commented Jan 10, 2023

Current issue

Previously, a lot of input parameters were necessary to define the Api struct. That's no longer the case with our Config. So instead of directyl implementing a GetterClient, it should be looked into, if there's still a benefit to a GetterClient.

Original text

Or similar. This way, all the unnecessary parameters, like signer, extrinsic params and such don't need to be defined in case on only needs to query node but not send extriniscs.

Check out the related discussion in #357.

@haerdib haerdib added F7-enhancement Enhances an already existing functionality Q3-substantial labels Jan 10, 2023
@haerdib haerdib changed the title Introduce a GettClient Introduce a GetterClient Jan 10, 2023
@haerdib haerdib changed the title Introduce a GetterClient Investigate if a GetterClient still makes sense Jul 10, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
F7-enhancement Enhances an already existing functionality Q3-substantial
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant