refactor: replace eventuals with Tokio watch for disputes

[taslimmuhammed]

Fixes #361
tried fixing only disputes[caused a chain reaction], had to fix all related too,

• didn't rename the pipe to handle[Although they are now handles, serves purpose of a pipe]
• added wait for many tests in "common" dir.
• removed error check .map_err(|e| CheckError::Retryable(e.into()))? in tap-agent signature

if any of the above violates current code/is wrong do tell, I'll fix, also there are so many unnecessary comments, I'll remove after review

[gusinacio]

Wow, I didn't know it would cause this chain reaction. It turned out to be bigger than I thought, sorry for that.

[taslimmuhammed]

No, I'm sorry I messed up, you only asked for changing the dispute variable right?, misunderstood, changed all the eventual variables in the errored files, if for now, you want change only on disputes do tell, I'll push it seperately.

[gusinacio]

No, I'm sorry I messed up, you only asked for changing the dispute variable right?, misunderstood, changed all the eventual variables in the errored files, if for now, you want change only on disputes do tell, I'll push it seperately.

Do you know if it's possible to split into 4 different PRs (assuming all of the PRs are gonna build/test correctly)?

It's currently too big and I'm scared of miss anything. In case this is not possible just let me know and I'll try to review carefully this big PR.

[taslimmuhammed]

Sure, I'll do that, but I can only do that tomorrow, came out for a small interview .

[gusinacio]

Hey, this is just a mini-review about the current work. It's in the right direction!

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 11407487878

Details

• 62 of 69 (89.86%) changed or added relevant lines in 2 files are covered.
• 1 unchanged line in 1 file lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.07%) to 71.035%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
common/src/attestations/signers.rs	42	45	93.33%
common/src/attestations/dispute_manager.rs	20	24	83.33%

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
common/src/attestations/signers.rs	1	95.29%

Totals
Change from base Build 11393425137:	0.07%
Covered Lines:	4640
Relevant Lines:	6532

---

💛 - Coveralls

[taslimmuhammed]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 11364651032

Details

* **248** of **302**   **(82.12%)**  changed or added relevant lines in **17** files are covered.

* **4** unchanged lines in **2** files lost coverage.

* Overall coverage increased (+**0.08%**) to **70.629%**

Changes Missing Coverage Covered Lines Changed/Added Lines %
common/src/tap.rs 0 2 0.0%
common/src/tap/checks/sender_balance_check.rs 0 2 0.0%
tap-agent/src/agent/sender_account.rs 100 102 98.04%
common/src/tap/checks/allocation_eligible.rs 0 3 0.0%
common/src/attestations/dispute_manager.rs 23 27 85.19%
common/src/escrow_accounts.rs 15 20 75.0%
common/src/indexer_service/http/request_handler.rs 0 10 0.0%
common/src/allocations/monitor.rs 0 26 0.0%
Files with Coverage Reduction New Missed Lines %
common/src/allocations/monitor.rs 1 0.0%
tap-agent/src/agent/sender_account.rs 3 92.7%
Totals
Change from base Build 11351305070: 0.08%
Covered Lines: 4516
Relevant Lines: 6394

💛 - Coveralls

hi, I'm little new to this, does this mean you have reviewed the most of code?, cause I was going to just limit the PR to disputes_manger as of now

[gusinacio]

hi, I'm little new to this, does this mean you have reviewed the most of code?, cause I was going to just limit the PR to disputes_manger as of now

Nope, this is just a verification check to understand test coverage of your PR. This means what's the percentage of your code is being tested by tests.

You don't need to worry about it.

[taslimmuhammed]

Hi, please have a look, it was responding to both variable changes when I tested in a local program.

[gusinacio]

Hey, I loved your solution. Here are just some small changes and questions.

[gusinacio]

LGTM. Could you fix the issues with CI? We had a mini refactor updating the imports for Address to use alloy::primitives, I guess your merge didn't handle it.

[taslimmuhammed]

LGTM. Could you fix the issues with CI? We had a mini refactor updating the imports for Address to use alloy::primitives, I guess your merge didn't handle it.

sure, I had to resolve last conflict on github so couldn't run commands, BTW:-

• cargo clippy --all-targets --all-features # for clippy
• cargo fmt # for fmt
• cargo sqlx prepare --workspace -- --all-targets # for SQL offline mode
  even after running all of this some PR checks usually fails, am I doing it wrong, or missing any commands?

[taslimmuhammed]

Thank you for taking the time to review and approve my PR. I really appreciate your feedback and support in getting this merged!

[gusinacio]

even after running all of this some PR checks usually fails, am I doing it wrong, or missing any commands?

We have two tests that usually fail:

• Lint PR: we use conventional commits, if your commit messages are not like that, it'll fail. Usually, I squash and set the correct message for the PR. If you start using them, they'll start to pass.
• Build and upload Docker image: it's a problem on our end, we shouldn't try to push docker images in case it's an external contributor.

Other than those two checks, all of the others should pass correctly.

[gusinacio]

Could you use use alloy::primitives::Address; instead of use thegraph_core::Address;

[taslimmuhammed]

oh , sorry

[gusinacio]

LGTM, thank you so much for the clean and beautiful code.

[taslimmuhammed]

Really humbled by your kind words, BTW could you assign attestation_signers too to me