-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 589
Feature Gated: remove obsoleted FeeRateGovernor from fee calculation #5749
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Feature Gated: remove obsoleted FeeRateGovernor from fee calculation #5749
Conversation
7860020
to
b08383b
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #5749 +/- ##
========================================
Coverage 83.4% 83.4%
========================================
Files 850 850
Lines 377790 377648 -142
========================================
- Hits 315166 315049 -117
+ Misses 62624 62599 -25 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
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.
Checking in, what's the status of this PR?
PR is ready for review. Have run it in testnet for several days, looked OK. Not on the top of list atm, but appreciate reviews. |
b1a1a77
to
f32b13a
Compare
After rebase, it seems to break sbf stable test due to test program is not deployed. I'm taking it back to draft for investigation. Please hold on reviewing. Sorry about back-n-forth. failed stable-sbf test
|
The failing test is flaky, pretty sure is a timing issue - test transaction could be sent before simulation program is deployed. This PR makes TestValidator starts up quicker by effective skip this step. Plan to address test's flakiness in own PR. |
be93f97
to
570405c
Compare
ff5188c
to
4fe1f20
Compare
#6587 updated @brooksprumo @apfitzge, for refreshment, it is part of #3303 |
4fe1f20
to
1025017
Compare
To clarify what's expected behavior when this feature gate is activated: This feature gate changes how
Impact on fees: None.
I'll test it out by restarting this PR-built validator (with feature enabled hardcodedly) on three public clusters, make sure it's catchup, and stay up for an epoch. (edited) |
Problem
lamports_per_signature
inblockhash_queue
and nonce accounts is not used for fee calculation.bank.fee_structure.lamports_per_signature = 5_000
.lamports_per_signature
in the blockhash_queue is to enable test-mode zero fees when it's set to zero.fee_rate_governor
, which is overly complex and introduces inconsistency, especially in early banks. (example)Summary of Changes
target_lamports_per_signature
from genesis_config into the blockhash queue.lamports_per_signature
from the parent bank.Note: impact on testnet
Genesis Config for three public clusters
Notice that testnet sets
target_lamports_per_signature
to 0 in its genesis config, but it is not a zero-fee environment today. (At some point, the lamports_per_signature value in the blockhash queue was updated to a non-zero value.)With this PR enabled, a validator restarted from an existing snapshot will inherit the non-zero
lamports_per_signature
from its parent bank and continue charging normal fees.However, if the validator were to restart from genesis, it would enter a zero-fee mode, since the genesis bank would initialize the blockhash queue with
lamports_per_signature = 0
.Fixes #5782