Refundable fee updates #3886
Refundable fee updates #3886
Conversation
| @@ -603,6 +603,12 @@ InvokeHostFunctionOpFrame::doApply(Application& app, AbstractLedgerTxn& ltx, | |||
| innerResult().code(INVOKE_HOST_FUNCTION_RESOURCE_LIMIT_EXCEEDED); | |||
| return false; | |||
| } | |||
| metrics.mEmitEventByte += out.result_value.data.size(); | |||
| if (resources.contractEventsSizeBytes < metrics.mEmitEventByte) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought contractEventsSizeBytes is being removed due to your xdr change?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This PR was created prior to the XDR change, but XDR change only removes the value from resources. So condition here will need to change to config.txMaxContractEventsSizeBytes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually, I'll probably integrate the XDR change in this PR to keep things simpler (and also there is something suspicious going on with the fees, I need to investigate that as well). I'll ping this when ready.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The PR is updated and is ready for review again.
dmkozh
force-pushed
the
fee_upd
branch
2 times, most recently
from
0055fb0
to
2052559
Compare
dmkozh
changed the title
- Add result size to the events size for fee and limit accounting. - Use the proper error code - Omit redundant tx-specified limit on contract events
| @@ -39,6 +39,8 @@ struct MinimumSorobanNetworkConfig | |||
|
|
|||
| static constexpr uint32_t MINIMUM_PERSISTENT_ENTRY_LIFETIME = 4'096; | |||
| static constexpr uint32_t MAXIMUM_ENTRY_LIFETIME = 535'680; // 31 days | |||
|
|
|||
| static constexpr uint32_t TX_MAX_CONTRACT_EVENTS_SIZE_BYTES = 200; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is the minimum not 0?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because return value is also counted towards events size and upload wasm and create contract ops return the identifiers. I also added a bit more to be able to get at least some basic events working. I guess minimum could be a bit lower (like 40 bytes), but for initial we'd need a bit more to check that events work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah that's right. Maybe we should change the name to reflect both events and results? Either way this doesn't need to block the PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, it would require an XDR change and honestly I'm not sure what would be a better name (contractEventsAndReturnValue sounds way too clunky IMO)
|
r+ b74baf8 |
Description
Resolves stellar/rs-soroban-env#995
Checklist
clang-formatv8.0.0 (viamake formator the Visual Studio extension)