Skip to content

Add Canton support (NONEVM-3454) #673

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Draft
friedemannf wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Add Canton support (NONEVM-3454) #673

friedemannf wants to merge 4 commits into from
+499 −9

Conversation

@friedemannf
Copy link
Member

@friedemannf friedemannf commented Jan 16, 2026

No description provided.

@changeset-bot
Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Jan 16, 2026 •
edited
Loading

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 9f6b74a

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

@friedemannf friedemannf changed the title Add Canton support (NONEVM-3212) Add Canton support (NONEVM-3454) Jan 16, 2026
jkongie
jkongie reviewed Jan 16, 2026
View reviewed changes
chain/canton/provider/rpc_provider.go
)

type RPCChainProviderConfig struct {
Participants []blockchain.CantonParticipantEndpoints
Copy link
Collaborator

@jkongie jkongie Jan 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

RPCChainProvider is used in real scenarios and generally as part of the CLD workflow. It seems strange that you would need to use a struct from the chainlink-testing-framework here.

Is there somewhere else where this data structure is defined that can be used instead?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@jkongie jkongie jkongie left review comments

Copilot code review Copilot Awaiting requested review from Copilot Copilot will automatically review once the pull request is marked ready for review

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@friedemannf @jkongie