There is currently a SEP discussion about event_ids
Whatever the outcome of this is we will need to add event_id to history_contract events for all events (contract, diagnostic, and system events).
With the current SEP proposal event_ids would look like
<TOID of ledger>-<type; either 'c' or 'd'>-<event index>
- refers to TOID called with (ledger sequence, 0, 0)
- for either
- c for contract events
- d for diagnostic events
- is the correctly ordered events
- Order of events is defined as
- Pre-application events
- Operation events
- Post-transaction events
- Post-application events
Backfilling can be in place in BQ. It won't have completely accurate event_ids because there isn't an index within BQ for history_contract_events
There is currently a SEP discussion about event_ids
Whatever the outcome of this is we will need to add event_id to history_contract events for all events (contract, diagnostic, and system events).
With the current SEP proposal event_ids would look like
Backfilling can be in place in BQ. It won't have completely accurate event_ids because there isn't an index within BQ for history_contract_events