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

Productionize llo transmitter #14355

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 11, 2024
Merged

Conversation

samsondav
Copy link
Collaborator

Productionize LLO transmitter.

This mostly copies over similar patterns and structure from the battle-tested mercury transmitter, with a few modifications to generalize it to LLO.

@samsondav samsondav force-pushed the MERC-3659-standalone-llo-transmitter branch 3 times, most recently from eb67ede to d6eed74 Compare September 9, 2024 15:53
@samsondav samsondav marked this pull request as ready for review September 9, 2024 15:53
@samsondav samsondav requested review from a team as code owners September 9, 2024 15:53
@samsondav samsondav requested review from cedric-cordenier and removed request for a team September 9, 2024 15:53
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ func TestEVMForwarderPresenter_RenderTable(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()

var (
id = "1"
id = "ID:"
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This was needed to fix a flake

@samsondav samsondav force-pushed the MERC-3659-standalone-llo-transmitter branch 4 times, most recently from 423ffd1 to b824d18 Compare September 10, 2024 12:18
if p.RawServerURL == "" {
merr = errors.Join(merr, errors.New("llo: ServerURL must be specified"))
if len(p.Servers) == 0 {
merr = errors.Join(merr, errors.New("llo: At least one Mercury server must be specified"))
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should it be "Mercury server"? this transmitter is purely for Data Engine?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Well, in this case the nomenclature is shifting a bit. I’m still referring to the server as “mercury”, this is specific to transmitting to the server.

The plugin itself does not reference it

@samsondav samsondav enabled auto-merge September 10, 2024 13:12
@samsondav samsondav force-pushed the MERC-3659-standalone-llo-transmitter branch from 6e1742a to 2d74231 Compare September 10, 2024 13:26
brunotm
brunotm previously approved these changes Sep 10, 2024
@samsondav samsondav force-pushed the MERC-3659-standalone-llo-transmitter branch from 3052c57 to f53a551 Compare September 10, 2024 21:13
@samsondav samsondav requested a review from a team as a code owner September 10, 2024 21:13
@samsondav samsondav requested a review from brunotm September 10, 2024 21:14
@samsondav samsondav force-pushed the MERC-3659-standalone-llo-transmitter branch from f53a551 to ce9948c Compare September 10, 2024 21:16
msuchacz-cll
msuchacz-cll previously approved these changes Sep 10, 2024
akuzni2
akuzni2 previously approved these changes Sep 10, 2024
brunotm
brunotm previously approved these changes Sep 11, 2024
This mostly copies over similar patterns and structure from the
battle-tested mercury transmitter, with a few modifications to
generalize it to LLO
@samsondav samsondav dismissed stale reviews from akuzni2 and msuchacz-cll via 65c1eec September 11, 2024 13:04
@samsondav samsondav force-pushed the MERC-3659-standalone-llo-transmitter branch from ce9948c to 65c1eec Compare September 11, 2024 13:04
@samsondav samsondav added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 11, 2024
Merged via the queue into develop with commit 356c70c Sep 11, 2024
137 checks passed
@samsondav samsondav deleted the MERC-3659-standalone-llo-transmitter branch September 11, 2024 13:51
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants