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

Add RelayByTimestamp request to the relayer #359

Open
4 tasks
srdtrk opened this issue Mar 3, 2025 · 0 comments
Open
4 tasks

Add RelayByTimestamp request to the relayer #359

srdtrk opened this issue Mar 3, 2025 · 0 comments
Labels
needs discussion This issue needs more discussion before its implementation relayer Issues related to the relayer type: feature Feature request

Comments

@srdtrk
Copy link
Member

srdtrk commented Mar 3, 2025

Summary

Right now, all relaying and batching is done via tx hashes in RelayByTxRequest, which requires the submitters to submit tx hashes from both chains. This api is non-intuitive, and requires the users to know the tx hashes of IBC events to be able to relay.

Problem Definition

RelayByTxRequest works very well when it comes to 3rd party front-end integrators/api users such as skip go. It is not ideal when it comes to usage from end users or generic test suites.

Use cases

  • Relay by only defining from and to unix timestamps.
  • Test suites like interchaintest
  • Makes it easier to implement an auto-relayer by running in a loop

Proposal

// The request message
message RelayByTimestampRequest {
    // The source chain identifier
    string src_chain = 1;
    // The target chain identifier
    string dst_chain = 2;
    // Unix timestamp to start batching from
    uint64 from_timestamp = 3;
    // Unix timestamp to stop batching.
    uint64 to_timestamp = 4;
    // The identifier for the target client
    // Used for event filtering
    string target_client_id = 5;
}

// The response message
message RelayByTimestampResponse {
    // The multicall transaction to be submitted by caller
    bytes tx = 1;
    // The contract address to submit the transaction, if applicable
    string address = 2;
}

For Admin Use

  • Not duplicate issue
  • Appropriate labels applied
  • Appropriate contributors tagged/assigned
  • Estimate provided
@srdtrk srdtrk added needs discussion This issue needs more discussion before its implementation relayer Issues related to the relayer type: feature Feature request labels Mar 3, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
needs discussion This issue needs more discussion before its implementation relayer Issues related to the relayer type: feature Feature request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant