Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 15, 2023. It is now read-only.

Reject too large transactions #558

Merged
gavofyork merged 5 commits into from
Aug 14, 2018
Merged

Reject too large transactions #558

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
b622f09
Fix is_valid condition when removing transactions from the pool.
tomusdrw Aug 13, 2018
8c34f5a
Less verbosity.
tomusdrw Aug 13, 2018
1e8b0ef
Reject too large transctions from the pool.
tomusdrw Aug 13, 2018
b096c1b
Bring back the warning level.
tomusdrw Aug 13, 2018
d48fdba
Fix link.
tomusdrw Aug 13, 2018
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
Next Next commit
Fix is_valid condition when removing transactions from the pool.
  • Loading branch information
@tomusdrw
tomusdrw committed Aug 13, 2018
commit b622f09182785137ea35cb53c6fee7f6cdc069d7
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion substrate/extrinsic-pool/src/pool.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ impl<Hash, VEx, S, E> Pool<Hash, VEx, S, E> where
let mut pool = self.pool.write();
let mut results = Vec::with_capacity(hashes.len());
for hash in hashes {
results.push(pool.remove(hash, is_valid));
results.push(pool.remove(hash, !is_valid));
Copy link
Contributor

@pepyakin pepyakin Aug 13, 2018 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not sure I follow this one. Why is it inverted here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@tomusdrw tomusdrw Aug 13, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The transaction-pool API expects an inverted bool (is_invalid) - that was a bug that was causing the transactions to be logged as "canceled" instead of "invalid"

Copy link
Contributor

@pepyakin pepyakin Aug 13, 2018 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh, maybe we should rename it then, since it's presently named is_valid? This is actually where my confusion comes from : )

https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot/blob/e89b8aa7e4ceb2b8f1348e027d61ebb9c820eec4/polkadot/transaction-pool/src/lib.rs#L389

Copy link
Contributor Author

@tomusdrw tomusdrw Aug 13, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So the composition looks like this:

polkadot-transaction-pool -> substrate-extrinsic-pool -> [parity-]transaction-pool

The code in polkadot transaction pool is fine it uses is_valid and passes it further to extrinsics pool. Extrinsics pool uses the external transaction-pool (take from ethereum/parity) and that one is using is_invalid (https://docs.rs/transaction-pool/1.12.1/transaction_pool/struct.Pool.html#method.remove) hence the inversion here.

Copy link
Contributor

@pepyakin pepyakin Aug 13, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I can see it now! I mistakingly assumed that transaction_pool as txpool refers to polkadot-transaction-pool

}
results
}
Expand Down