Skip to content

Conversation

@pratikmankawde
Copy link
Collaborator

Context of Change

Complete details of the context of the change and the change itself is shared in the ticket associated with this.

I am not duplicating the details here to avoid redundancy and confusion.
I will add details of the test and impact in the ticket itself.

Type of Change

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • Refactor (non-breaking change that only restructures code)
  • Performance (increase or change in throughput and/or latency)
  • Tests (you added tests for code that already exists, or your new feature included in this PR)
  • Documentation update
  • Chore (no impact to binary, e.g. .gitignore, formatting, dropping support for older tooling)
  • Release

@pratikmankawde pratikmankawde changed the title Charge higher fees for and reject heavy tm get object by hash queries Charge higher fees for and reject heavy TMGetObjectByHashLimit queries Dec 8, 2025
return;
}

// Charge heavier fee for large requests (>256 objects)
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why 256? What should be these incremental boundaries?

}
else
{
fee_.update(
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should the minimum fee be feeModerateBurdenPeer or feeTrivialPeer?

// (only when fix is enabled)
if (replyBudgetBytes > 0 &&
replyBytes + dataSz + 64 > replyBudgetBytes)
break;
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we break here, meaning we send whatever we accumulated or just not send anything?

@pratikmankawde pratikmankawde marked this pull request as ready for review December 8, 2025 13:45
@pratikmankawde pratikmankawde requested a review from a team as a code owner December 8, 2025 13:45
@bthomee bthomee requested a review from vlntb December 8, 2025 13:48
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants