Skip to content
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.

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

Remove unnecessary generality from ItemizableFeeCharging #1461

Closed
tinker-michaelj opened this issue May 23, 2021 · 0 comments
Closed

Remove unnecessary generality from ItemizableFeeCharging #1461

tinker-michaelj opened this issue May 23, 2021 · 0 comments
Assignees
Labels
Performance Issues related to performance concerns.
Milestone

Comments

@tinker-michaelj
Copy link
Collaborator

tinker-michaelj commented May 23, 2021

Summary
The ItemizableFeeCharging allows charging any combination of network, node, and service fees to either the designated payer or submitting node for a transaction.

However, only four combinations are actually used:

  1. Node didn't perform due diligence --> Submitting node charged (up to) network fee.
  2. Payer submitted duplicate txn or was unwilling/unable to pay service fee --> Payer charged network fee and (up to) node fee.
  3. Txn not scheduled and payer can afford all fees --> Payer charged all fees.
  4. Txn was scheduled and payer can afford service fee --> Payer charged service fee.

It will be simpler, safer, and more performant to implement methods for just these cases.

Possible resolution
Refactor ItemizableFeeCharging to support only these charging actions.

@tinker-michaelj tinker-michaelj added this to the Hedera 0.15.0 milestone May 23, 2021
@tinker-michaelj tinker-michaelj self-assigned this May 23, 2021
@nathanklick nathanklick added Performance Issues related to performance concerns. and removed perf labels Aug 25, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Performance Issues related to performance concerns.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants