-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 520
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
EIP1559 strict balance validation #857
Merged
sorpaas
merged 7 commits into
polkadot-evm:master
from
moonbeam-foundation:notlesh-eip-1559-strict-balance-validation
Oct 6, 2022
Merged
Changes from 4 commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
7901252
Change test assumptions
notlesh cd0aeaf
Validate account balance against max_fee_per_gas
notlesh 68c28bb
Deduct base_fee + tip rather than max_fee_per_gas
notlesh 234e2b2
fmt
notlesh d3cc500
Leave actual_priority_fee_per_gas unused
notlesh 4ee1411
Merge branch 'master' into notlesh-eip-1559-strict-balance-validation
notlesh 97b2aaf
Remove TODO comment
notlesh File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see three possibilities:
actual_priority_fee_per_gas
and this comment)correct_and_deposit_fee()
return (or even know about...?) priority feeactual_priority_fee_per_gas
for sanity checksThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
1 or 3 would be appropriate for this PR, 2 would make sense as a follow-up.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd slightly prefer option 3. This is only executed once per transaction so the performance impact is minimum.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
After another review, this was really always the case. Previously, we only calculated priority fee as an incremental step to get to total fee, and that's no longer necessary in this PR.
It's
correct_and_deposit_fee()
which is responsible for coming up with the tip to be paid.We could add a sanity check that
correct_and_deposit_fee()
returns something equal to (...or less than?) the correct priority_fee, but that would require additional trait bounds forLiquidityInfo
to at least compare it.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I went with
1
for now. If3
is worth the extra trait bounds in your opinion, I'm happy to do it.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah that's okay. Please resolve the conflicts.