feat: update internal buffer order graph #504
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
| value: log.inputs[IndexTransferInput.value].value, | ||
| isInternal: from === to, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Assuming only internal trades will ever have same from & to
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Technically, im not even sure is the case
It would be weird that there's an order under this case, it means we spend gas just to do nothing. And we make the user pay some gas. So doesn't look like a legit case, and I don't think the protocol should support wash-trading
There was a problem hiding this comment.
so im fine with this assumption
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I moved the node somewhere else, to be clearer there's a trade involved.
Still, if not isInternal, what's your suggestion?
| const transferAddresses = new Set() | ||
|
|
||
| transfers.forEach((transfer) => { | ||
| transferAddresses.add(transfer.from) | ||
| transferAddresses.add(transfer.to) | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| try { | ||
| contracts | ||
| .filter((contract: Contract) => { | ||
| // Only usecontracts which are involved in a transfer | ||
| return transfers.find((transfer) => { | ||
| return transfer.from === contract.address || transfer.to === contract.address | ||
| }) | ||
| }) | ||
| .forEach((contract: Contract) => { | ||
| contracts.forEach((contract: Contract) => { | ||
| // Only use contracts which are involved in a transfer | ||
| if (transferAddresses.has(contract.address)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Optimization as it was searching the transfers list for every contract
| @@ -121,6 +121,7 @@ export function STYLESHEET(theme: DefaultTheme): Stylesheet[] { | |||
| 'curve-style': 'bezier', | |||
| 'font-size': '15px', | |||
| 'text-background-padding': '3px', | |||
| 'control-point-step-size': 75, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Giving more space between edges
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not for this PR, and maybe not for now, but maybe we will want to:
- Label some special accounts, like:
0xa03be496e67ec29bc62f01a428683d7f9c204930 - Also, provide a way to open a node in etherscan or something. it's hard to check the actually full address
Nothing you should address here, just some thoughts
| value: log.inputs[IndexTransferInput.value].value, | ||
| isInternal: from === to, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Technically, im not even sure is the case
It would be weird that there's an order under this case, it means we spend gas just to do nothing. And we make the user pay some gas. So doesn't look like a legit case, and I don't think the protocol should support wash-trading
| value: log.inputs[IndexTransferInput.value].value, | ||
| isInternal: from === to, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
so im fine with this assumption
|
LGTM!! |
Update
Using
CoW Protocol Bufferas the node nameMoved the node together with the receiver address to be explicit this is a trade
Summary
Part of #491
Follow up to #492
Added new node for Internal buffer trades
Tooltip includes only
fromandamountTo Test
0xd78b614d0d5c39d55c516653e8674b73133d2c9bbdf302e5be036de7c6b304e6graphtabInternal buffer0xa6e62c2713ef08d4e979d8ba63643d6d1f522f8b825c27682098578dd9e1f043