Throw on non-divisible transaction plan #1155
Merged
+69
−19
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: f168194 The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 43 packages
Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are. Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR |
BundleMonFiles updated (7)
Unchanged files (129)
Total files change +871B +0.22% Final result: ✅ View report in BundleMon website ➡️ |
Contributor
|
Documentation Preview: https://kit-docs-d2mk37dm0-anza-tech.vercel.app |
lorisleiva
force-pushed
the
12-27-throw_on_non-divisible_transaction_plan
branch
from
f5a4399 to
f168194
Compare
lorisleiva
commented
Dec 27, 2025
Comment on lines
+430
to
+431
| [SOLANA_ERROR__INSTRUCTION_PLANS__NON_DIVISIBLE_TRANSACTION_PLANS_NOT_SUPPORTED]: | ||
| 'This transaction plan executor does not support non-divisible sequential plans. To support them, you may create your own executor such that multi-transaction atomicity is preserved — e.g. by targetting RPCs that support transaction bundles.', |
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is an important part of the PR to review. Lmk what you think. 🙏
lorisleiva
requested review from
mcintyre94 and
steveluscher
and removed request for
steveluscher
mcintyre94
approved these changes
Dec 28, 2025
Member
mcintyre94
left a comment
mcintyre94
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM! Error message looks good, and agree with a patch update.
Contributor
|
🔎💬 Inkeep AI search and chat service is syncing content for source 'Solana Kit Docs' |
This was referenced Dec 18, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Problem
We currently offer a default implementation of
TransactionPlanExecutorswhich requires a function to send a single transaction message. As such, this default implementation cannot handleNonDivisibleSequentialTransactionPlanssince it would involve sending multiple transactions atomically — e.g. using Jito bundles.The issue is the default implementation currently ignores the requirement of
NonDivisibleSequentialTransactionPlansand sends them as if they were regularSequentialTransactionPlans. This is a mistake (made by me) as it invalid the atomicity of theNonDivisibleSequentialTransactionPlansand could lead to serious issues.Summary of Changes
This PR fixes this issue by throwing a
SolanaErrorwhen we encounter aNonDivisibleSequentialTransactionPlanin our defaultTransactionPlanExecutorimplementation.Importantly, it asserts that no
NonDivisibleSequentialTransactionPlanexists in the potentially nestedTransactionPlanprovided before trying to send any transaction. This avoid having a partially successful plan execution when we could have avoided it from the start.Changeset reasoning
I went with a
patchupdate here because, whilst this is a breaking change, it was not working as intended before. Therefore, I see this more as a bug fix than a breaking change but do let me know if you have another view on this.Acknowledgements
Shout out to Andy for flagging this in one of his latest videos.