Update networks json #78
Conversation
WalkthroughThe Ethereum address and start block for the "metaboard0" entry under the "arbitrum-one" network were updated. Additionally, a new network configuration named "base" was added with a "metaboard0" object specifying an Ethereum address and a start block number. No other changes were made. Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Config as networks.json
participant User
User->>Config: Update "arbitrum-one" metaboard0 address and startBlock
Config-->>User: Store updated values
User->>Config: Add new "base" network entry with metaboard0 address and startBlock
Config-->>User: Store new network configuration
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
subgraph/networks.json(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (9)
- GitHub Check: standard-tests (ubuntu-latest, rainix-rs-static)
- GitHub Check: standard-tests (ubuntu-latest, rainix-sol-artifacts)
- GitHub Check: standard-tests (macos-latest, rainix-rs-test)
- GitHub Check: standard-tests (ubuntu-latest, rainix-sol-static)
- GitHub Check: standard-tests (ubuntu-latest, rainix-sol-test)
- GitHub Check: standard-tests (macos-latest, rainix-rs-artifacts)
- GitHub Check: standard-tests (ubuntu-latest, rainix-rs-test)
- GitHub Check: standard-tests (ubuntu-latest, rainix-rs-artifacts)
- GitHub Check: test
🔇 Additional comments (1)
subgraph/networks.json (1)
10-12: Action Required: Correct the JSON parsing and confirm the true deployment block
The currentjq '.[0] | {blockNumber}'filter is invalid for the Arbiscan response. Please:
- Update your verification script to extract the first transaction’s blockNumber from the
resultarray, e.g.:curl -s "https://api.arbiscan.io/api?module=account&action=txlist&address=$CONTRACT&startblock=0&endblock=999999999&sort=asc&apikey=YourApiKeyToken" \ | jq -r '.result[0].blockNumber'- If you lack a working API key, manually look up the contract creation tx on Arbiscan (or Etherscan) and note its block number.
- Compare that block to
256572417and, if earlier, rewindstartBlockin subgraph/networks.json to the actual first event block so no historical events are missed.
| "base": { | ||
| "metaboard0": { | ||
| "address": "0x59401C9302E79Eb8AC6aea659B8B3ae475715e86", | ||
| "startBlock": 18309350 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Verification agent
🧩 Analysis chain
Ensure the new “base” entry uses checksummed addresses & valid genesis block.
0x59401C9302E79Eb8AC6aea659B8B3ae475715e86is not EIP-55 checksummed (all-caps after the0x).- Confirm
startBlock: 18309350really matches the first event; Base blocks are much smaller (the chain launched with ~3 M blocks).
Diff to auto-checksum (if address is correct):
- "address": "0x59401C9302E79Eb8AC6aea659B8B3ae475715e86",
+ "address": "0x59401C9302E79eB8ac6AEa659b8b3AE475715E86",🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
# Validate checksum & block number across all networks.json addresses.
pip install --quiet eth_utils jq
python - <<'PY'
import json, sys
from eth_utils import is_checksum_address, to_checksum_address
data = json.load(open("subgraph/networks.json"))
bad = False
for net, d in data.items():
addr = d["metaboard0"]["address"]
if not is_checksum_address(addr):
bad = True
print(f"{net}: {addr} -> should be {to_checksum_address(addr.lower())}")
if bad:
sys.exit(1)
PYLength of output: 1998
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
# Install dependencies for checksum verification
pip install --quiet eth_utils eth-hash[pycryptodome] jq
# Verify EIP-55 checksums and report Base startBlock
python - <<'PY'
import json, sys
from eth_utils import is_checksum_address, to_checksum_address
data = json.load(open("subgraph/networks.json"))
for net, content in data.items():
mb = content.get("metaboard0", {})
addr = mb.get("address")
if addr and not is_checksum_address(addr):
print(f"{net}: {addr} -> should be {to_checksum_address(addr.lower())}")
# Print Base network’s configured startBlock
base_sb = data.get("base", {}).get("metaboard0", {}).get("startBlock")
print(f"base startBlock: {base_sb}")
PYLength of output: 96
Update Base network startBlock
The address for base → metaboard0 is already EIP-55 checksummed—no change needed there. However,
the configured startBlock: 18309350 far exceeds Base mainnet’s current height (~3 million). Please adjust it to the block where the metaboard0 contract was deployed (i.e., the first block that emitted one of its events).
• File: subgraph/networks.json (base → metaboard0, lines 14–17)
• Change startBlock: 18309350 → <actual_deployment_block>
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In subgraph/networks.json around lines 14 to 17, the startBlock for base →
metaboard0 is incorrectly set to 18309350, which is beyond the current Base
mainnet height. Update the startBlock value to the actual block number where the
metaboard0 contract was deployed, specifically the first block that emitted one
of its events, to ensure accurate indexing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems like the humans are having a chat. I'll hop back into my burrow for now. If you need me again, just tag @coderabbitai in a new comment, and I'll come hopping out!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems like the humans are having a chat. I'll hop back into my burrow for now. If you need me again, just tag @coderabbitai in a new comment, and I'll come hopping out!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes the contract 0x59401C9302E79Eb8AC6aea659B8B3ae475715e86 was deployed at block 18309350
Motivation
Add base to networks json.
Checks
By submitting this for review, I'm confirming I've done the following:
Summary by CodeRabbit