Skip to content

Refund extra proof bytes in message delivery transaction #1864

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

Merged
svyatonik merged 5 commits into from
Feb 15, 2023
Merged

Refund extra proof bytes in message delivery transaction #1864

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
2400817
refund extra proof bytes in message delivery transaction
svyatonik Feb 8, 2023
3e184ab
Update modules/messages/src/lib.rs
svyatonik Feb 9, 2023
e3fe021
more tests
svyatonik Feb 9, 2023
e4916f6
Merge branch 'refund-proof-size-in-message-delivery-tx' of https://gi…
svyatonik Feb 9, 2023
1a719ef
Merge branch 'master' into refund-proof-size-in-message-delivery-tx
svyatonik Feb 15, 2023
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Prev Previous commit
Next Next commit
more tests
  • Loading branch information
@svyatonik
svyatonik committed Feb 9, 2023
commit e3fe021e1a01ecfaef16370f1bcfb759b9c058a1
4 changes: 4 additions & 0 deletions modules/messages/src/lib.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2094,6 +2094,10 @@ mod tests {
storage(max_entries - 1).extra_proof_size_bytes(),
relayer_entry().encode().len() as u64
);
Comment on lines +2108 to +2111
Copy link
Collaborator

@acatangiu acatangiu Feb 8, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit1: I hope encoded_size_hint() used in extra_proof_size_bytes() is consistent in its return value and this test will be robust - worst case it will intermittently fail and we'll worry about that then.

nit2: I would add another one for extra safety (especially since previous test only verifies generic post_dispatch_weight.proof_size() < pre_dispatch_weight.proof_size() without checking/knowing how much smaller it should be.

Suggested change
assert_eq!(
storage(max_entries - 1).extra_proof_size_bytes(),
relayer_entry().encode().len() as u64
);
assert_eq!(
storage(max_entries - 1).extra_proof_size_bytes(),
relayer_entry().encode().len() as u64
);
assert_eq!(
storage(max_entries - 2).extra_proof_size_bytes(),
2 * relayer_entry().encode().len() as u64
);

(above could also be a loop, but testing at least two values is good enough imo)

Copy link
Contributor Author

@svyatonik svyatonik Feb 9, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit1: I hope encoded_size_hint() used in extra_proof_size_bytes() is consistent in its return value and this test will be robust - worst case it will intermittently fail and we'll worry about that then.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but both expressions in the extra_proof_size_bytes are using values, returned from the max_encoded_len. So iiuc they are somewhat consistent :)

nit2: I would add another one for extra safety (especially since previous test only verifies generic post_dispatch_weight.proof_size() < pre_dispatch_weight.proof_size() without checking/knowing how much smaller it should be.

Done

assert_eq!(
storage(max_entries - 2).extra_proof_size_bytes(),
2 * relayer_entry().encode().len() as u64
);

// when we have more than `MaxUnrewardedRelayerEntriesAtInboundLane` unrewarded relayers
// (shall not happen in practice)
Expand Down