Skip to content

feat: refactor usages of chain selectors API to use remote API#614

Draft
ecPablo wants to merge 2 commits intomainfrom
ecpablo/refactor-remote-chain-selectors
Draft

feat: refactor usages of chain selectors API to use remote API#614
ecPablo wants to merge 2 commits intomainfrom
ecpablo/refactor-remote-chain-selectors

Conversation

@ecPablo
Copy link
Collaborator

@ecPablo ecPablo commented Feb 6, 2026

Notes:

  • The SUI and Aptos chain selectors remote APIs are not implemented yet. So we are keeping the local ones. Those chains don't have many updates so it's not as important to support that in the remote API.
  • There's a couple of context.Background that I had to hardcode in the evm sdk. This is because we still need to provide a ctx variable at the interface level, which would mean a breaking change is introduced and all chain families sdk would need to be updated. I'd prefer to leave that for a separate PR.

Signed-off-by: Pablo <pablo.estrada@smartcontract.com>
@changeset-bot
Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Feb 6, 2026

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 6148b74

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR


// TODO: passing this as param requires a breaking change to the Encoder interfaces
// which requires changes too all chain specific SDKs. Consider refactoring later.
evmChainID, err := getEVMChainID(context.Background(), e.ChainSelector, e.IsSim)
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I want to remove this context.Background() and pass it as a param. But doing so will mean modifying the interfaces on the sdk pkg which is a pretty significant breaking change. My proposal is to go with this suboptimal approach so we can get the benefits of the remote apis now, and work on adding the ctx as separate followup so we can scope all breaking changes in a single PR and document better the changes that product teams would need to do for announcements, etc.

Signed-off-by: Pablo <pablo.estrada@smartcontract.com>
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.

1 participant