-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.3k
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
separate priority fee and transaction fee from fee calculation #34757
Changes from 1 commit
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -31,6 +31,19 @@ pub struct FeeStructure { | |
pub compute_fee_bins: Vec<FeeBin>, | ||
} | ||
|
||
/// Return type of calculate_fee(...) | ||
#[derive(Debug, Default, Clone, Eq, PartialEq)] | ||
pub struct FeeDetails { | ||
transaction_fee: u64, | ||
prioritization_fee: u64, | ||
} | ||
|
||
impl FeeDetails { | ||
pub fn total_fee(&self) -> u64 { | ||
self.transaction_fee.saturating_add(self.prioritization_fee) | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
pub const ACCOUNT_DATA_COST_PAGE_SIZE: u64 = 32_u64.saturating_mul(1024); | ||
|
||
impl FeeStructure { | ||
|
@@ -75,15 +88,32 @@ impl FeeStructure { | |
.saturating_mul(heap_cost) | ||
} | ||
|
||
/// Calculate fee for `SanitizedMessage` | ||
#[cfg(not(target_os = "solana"))] | ||
pub fn calculate_fee( | ||
&self, | ||
message: &SanitizedMessage, | ||
_lamports_per_signature: u64, | ||
lamports_per_signature: u64, | ||
budget_limits: &FeeBudgetLimits, | ||
include_loaded_account_data_size_in_fee: bool, | ||
) -> u64 { | ||
self.calculate_fee_details( | ||
message, | ||
lamports_per_signature, | ||
budget_limits, | ||
include_loaded_account_data_size_in_fee, | ||
) | ||
.total_fee() | ||
} | ||
|
||
/// Calculate fee details for `SanitizedMessage` | ||
#[cfg(not(target_os = "solana"))] | ||
pub fn calculate_fee_details( | ||
&self, | ||
message: &SanitizedMessage, | ||
_lamports_per_signature: u64, | ||
budget_limits: &FeeBudgetLimits, | ||
include_loaded_account_data_size_in_fee: bool, | ||
) -> FeeDetails { | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. this is changing the signature of a public interface, which is technically against semver. who's consuming this? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Direct callers (besides tests) are There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. well it's exposed for sure 'cause sdk is a publicly consumable crate and this method is publicly exported. question is whether it's actually consumed by anyone, which we really ought not find out the hard way. i suppose the most pedantic thing to do here would be to move this logic to a new method There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I agree with Trent here, it's quite possible 3rd party code usees this function. Seems reasonable there are many call-sites that don't care about the details, just the total fee. Might simplify this PR as well. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Agree too. But does There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. the ship has sailed on whether it needs to be or not. we've already shipped releases with it exposed in the public api of a publicly consumable crate that we've promised to follow semver on. removing that symbol for public availability anytime but a major release will be a violation of semver There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. 033c98b for the sailed ship |
||
let signature_fee = message | ||
.num_signatures() | ||
.saturating_mul(self.lamports_per_signature); | ||
|
@@ -115,12 +145,13 @@ impl FeeStructure { | |
.unwrap_or_default() | ||
}); | ||
|
||
(budget_limits | ||
.prioritization_fee | ||
.saturating_add(signature_fee) | ||
.saturating_add(write_lock_fee) | ||
.saturating_add(compute_fee) as f64) | ||
.round() as u64 | ||
FeeDetails { | ||
transaction_fee: (signature_fee | ||
.saturating_add(write_lock_fee) | ||
.saturating_add(compute_fee) as f64) | ||
.round() as u64, | ||
Comment on lines
+149
to
+152
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. unrelated, but why do we round here even after removing congestion? these are all integers, right? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Good catch! I'll patch it separately |
||
prioritization_fee: budget_limits.prioritization_fee, | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
|
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.
Keep this function live & active. @apfitzge has a good point that most use case just want total_fee. Doesn't need to deprecate it.