XVM: default account mapping for Wasm contracts #1056
Conversation
shaunxw
requested review from
Dinonard,
ashutoshvarma,
PierreOssun and
gitofdeepanshu
shaunxw
added
XVM
|
@shaunxw |
XVM is not the only usage, |
Minimum allowed line rate is |
|
|
||
| if UA::to_h160(&source).is_none() { | ||
| let weight_of_claim = <T as pallet_unified_accounts::Config>::WeightInfo::claim_default_evm_address(); | ||
| actual_weight.saturating_accrue(weight_of_claim); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've difficult time understanding, what if actual_weight after adding UA weight is higher than weight_limit?
As I understand, we don't have any check here to make sure such situation doesn't happen.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm aware of this, but didn't want to make the weight handling overcomplicated. It only happens in strict conditions and the weight amount is small. To make it 100% accurate, the weight limit needs to be adjusted as well, and this procedure would repeat everywhere.
|
|
||
| // claim the default mappings for wasm contract | ||
| claim_default_accounts(wasm_caller_addr.clone()); | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we add a check for AccountClaimed event for the first payable call to make sure the mappings? thanks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's an integration test, which shouldn't assume how it works under the hood. It's supposed to only check balances to make sure the payable call worked.
Pull Request Summary
A quick fix for the first part of #1033. A default EVM address mapping would be added for the Wasm contract if:
Check list