Commit graph

5 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Luke Parker
294462641e Don't have the ERC20 collapse the top-level transfer ID to the transaction ID
Uses the ID of the transfer event associated with the top-level transfer.
2024-09-19 23:36:32 -07:00
Luke Parker
18178f3764 Add note on the returned top-level transfers being unordered 2024-09-19 23:36:32 -07:00
Luke Parker
8f2a9301cf Don't have the router drop transactions which may have top-level transfers
The router will now match the top-level transfer so it isn't used as the
justification for the InInstruction it's handling. This allows the theoretical
case where a top-level transfer occurs (to any entity) and an internal call
performs a transfer to Serai.

Also uses a JoinSet for fetching transactions' top-level transfers in the ERC20
crate. This does add a dependency on tokio yet improves performance, and it's
scoped under serai-processor (which is always presumed to be tokio-based).
While we could instead import futures for join_all,
https://github.com/smol-rs/futures-lite/issues/6 summarizes why that wouldn't
be a good idea. While we could prefer async-executor over tokio's JoinSet,
JoinSet doesn't share the same issues as FuturesUnordered. That means our
question is solely if we want the async-executor executor or the tokio
executor, when we've already established the Serai processor is always presumed
to be tokio-based.
2024-09-19 23:36:32 -07:00
Luke Parker
381495618c Trim dead code 2024-09-19 23:36:32 -07:00
Luke Parker
a7d5640642 Smash ERC20 into its own library 2024-09-19 23:36:32 -07:00