Description
Prerequisites
- I am running the latest fetchd version.
- I checked the documentation and found no answer to my problem.
- I checked the existing issues to make sure my problem has not already been reported.
Expected Behavior
When a contract calls another contract, we should be able to determine which emitted events come from which contract.
Current Behavior
Here is a transaction where one contract has called another (and maybe that called another one)- they all emit events.
Type this:
fetchd query tx --type hash EA8C0B4DF96C9E2A6D62F51FEFFFF9DFD23E25841E7D0CA23F180F85A58E7797
Look at the raw_log
Formatted in python with pprint we get:
[{'events': [{'attributes': [{'key': '_contract_address',
'value': 'fetch1k4x9c4qp5f2dtdrlxw2yk4ahksytw3tnpvcsg4zf6zftdukxt20q7lqgyd'},
{'key': '_contract_address',
'value': 'fetch1skemrn8c44vh8k5rag8rgfzus9w6ngptqpdyk4d2q3mg23mlljnq0nqmu2'},
{'key': '_contract_address',
'value': 'fetch1h3er28zy2pnrcc2vld4sk4wj2pjzu2tndyfy2apfp8cutr0cz5usggk36u'},
{'key': '_contract_address',
'value': 'fetch1skemrn8c44vh8k5rag8rgfzus9w6ngptqpdyk4d2q3mg23mlljnq0nqmu2'}],
'type': 'execute'},
{'attributes': [{'key': 'action',
'value': '/cosmwasm.wasm.v1.MsgExecuteContract'},
{'key': 'module', 'value': 'wasm'},
{'key': 'sender',
'value': 'fetch1kc07mf256cy244r4t3vxsth9gfcay8pxmgneap'}],
'type': 'message'},
{'attributes': [{'key': '_contract_address',
'value': 'fetch1k4x9c4qp5f2dtdrlxw2yk4ahksytw3tnpvcsg4zf6zftdukxt20q7lqgyd'},
{'key': 'token_id', 'value': 'token_id_2'},
{'key': '_contract_address',
'value': 'fetch1skemrn8c44vh8k5rag8rgfzus9w6ngptqpdyk4d2q3mg23mlljnq0nqmu2'},
{'key': 'action', 'value': 'transfer'},
{'key': 'token_id', 'value': 'token_id_2'},
{'key': 'amount', 'value': '1000000000000000000'},
{'key': 'to',
'value': 'fetch1fty4wekjea7ndy6auax70736hkyqvqf3h29thz'},
{'key': '_contract_address',
'value': 'fetch1h3er28zy2pnrcc2vld4sk4wj2pjzu2tndyfy2apfp8cutr0cz5usggk36u'},
{'key': 'action', 'value': 'update_asset'},
{'key': 'id', 'value': '2'},
{'key': 'borrower',
'value': 'fetch1fty4wekjea7ndy6auax70736hkyqvqf3h29thz'},
{'key': 'denomination', 'value': 'GBP'},
{'key': 'description', 'value': 'test asset01'},
{'key': 'fixed_fee', 'value': '0'},
{'key': 'fixed_recovery_costs', 'value': '0'},
{'key': 'guaranteed_recovery_ratio',
'value': '70'},
{'key': 'max_rate_bias', 'value': '0'},
{'key': 'max_recovery_time', 'value': '12'},
{'key': 'valuation_duration', 'value': '1'},
{'key': 'value', 'value': '100000'},
{'key': 'create_time', 'value': '1651835581'},
{'key': 'status', 'value': 'Secured'},
{'key': 'trustee',
'value': 'fetch1kc07mf256cy244r4t3vxsth9gfcay8pxmgneap'}],
'type': 'wasm'}]}]
The event data is not split into seperate events - it is just a list of key-value pairs. At the moment, we are just seperating them by assuming that when there is a "_contract_address" key then this is the start of a new event...but is this valid? Can someone mess things up by emitting an event from a contract with a key _contract_address and spoof the indexer (for example) into thinking that the even has come from another contract?
To Reproduce
Se above
Context
Mac OS pointing at Dorado
Failure Logs
No response