5551/xdrill operations

[chowbao]

PR Checklist

PR Structure

• This PR has reasonably narrow scope (if not, break it down into smaller PRs).
• This PR avoids mixing refactoring changes with feature changes (split into two PRs
  otherwise).
• This PR's title starts with name of package that is most changed in the PR, ex.
  services/friendbot, or all or doc if the changes are broad or impact many
  packages.

Thoroughness

• This PR adds tests for the most critical parts of the new functionality or fixes.
• I've updated any docs (developer docs, .md
  files, etc... affected by this change). Take a look in the docs folder for a given service,
  like this one.

Release planning

• I've reviewed the changes in this PR and if I consider them worthwhile for being mentioned on release notes then I have updated the relevant CHANGELOG.md within the component folder structure. For example, if I changed horizon, then I updated (services/horizon/CHANGELOG.md. I add a new line item describing the change and reference to this PR. If I don't update a CHANGELOG, I acknowledge this PR's change may not be mentioned in future release notes.
• I've decided if this PR requires a new major/minor version according to
  semver, or if it's mainly a patch change. The PR is targeted at the next
  release branch if it's not a patch change.

What

#5551

xdrill functions for LedgerOperations

Why

Create low level helper functions for operations parsing

Known limitations

• Refactor of the processor/transforms to be done in separate ticket/pr

This PR replaces chowbao#2

[karthikiyer56]

@chowbao : I think it is best to hold-off on this work until:

1. P23 changes have gone in
2. we have finalized on the structuring we want in /ingest - Spike: refactor ingest sdk packaging, demarcate purpose #5595

more details on why here

[sreuland]

code looks good. My only question is landing it in /ingest package vetted in other threads? I may be unaware of that context, I see same question on location in prior pr, but it didn't get feedback. The functionality introduced seems complementary to ingestion rather than composing it and will incur more effort on ingest package to maintain it going forward. Was wondering if this is acceptable or could it target other landing spots like:

• in mono - stellar/go/support/operation_processor
• in stellar-etl - stellar/stellar-etl/operation_processor
• in new repo - stellar/data-processing/operation_processor

[chowbao]

code looks good. My only question is landing it in /ingest package vetted in other threads? I may be unaware of that context, I see same question on location in prior pr, but it didn't get feedback. The functionality introduced seems complementary to ingestion rather than composing it and will incur more effort on ingest package to maintain it going forward. Was wondering if this is acceptable or could it target other landing spots like:

• in mono - stellar/go/support/operation_processor
• in stellar-etl - stellar/stellar-etl/operation_processor
• in new repo - stellar/data-processing/operation_processor

Yup I agree. My personal opinion would be a new repo stellar/data-processing/operation_processor but I think that's outside the scope of this ticket.

We should discuss that in #5651 cause it's along the same lines as your comment and Syd's comment