Skip to content
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

Increase existential deposit #1397

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Dec 4, 2024
Merged

Increase existential deposit #1397

merged 7 commits into from
Dec 4, 2024

Conversation

maltekliemann
Copy link
Contributor

What does it do?

What important points should reviewers know?

Is there something left for follow-up PRs?

What alternative implementations were considered?

Are there relevant PRs or issues?

References

@maltekliemann maltekliemann requested a review from sea212 as a code owner December 2, 2024 18:29
@maltekliemann maltekliemann added the s:review-needed The pull request requires reviews label Dec 2, 2024
@mergify mergify bot added s:in-progress The pull requests is currently being worked on and removed s:review-needed The pull request requires reviews labels Dec 2, 2024
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Dec 2, 2024

⚠️ Please install the 'codecov app svg image' to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 93.19%. Comparing base (b3d2884) to head (7faab98).

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1397   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.19%   93.19%           
=======================================
  Files         131      131           
  Lines       29241    29241           
=======================================
  Hits        27252    27252           
  Misses       1989     1989           
Flag Coverage Δ
tests 93.19% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@maltekliemann maltekliemann added s:review-needed The pull request requires reviews and removed s:in-progress The pull requests is currently being worked on labels Dec 2, 2024
@mergify mergify bot added s:in-progress The pull requests is currently being worked on and removed s:review-needed The pull request requires reviews labels Dec 3, 2024
@maltekliemann maltekliemann added s:review-needed The pull request requires reviews and removed s:in-progress The pull requests is currently being worked on labels Dec 3, 2024
@maltekliemann maltekliemann added s:review-needed The pull request requires reviews and removed s:review-needed The pull request requires reviews labels Dec 3, 2024
@maltekliemann maltekliemann added s:review-needed The pull request requires reviews and removed s:review-needed The pull request requires reviews labels Dec 3, 2024
Copy link
Member

@Chralt98 Chralt98 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me.

pub const ContractsDepositPerByte: Balance = deposit(0,1);
pub const ContractsDepositPerItem: Balance = deposit(1,0);
pub const ContractsMaxCodeLen: u32 = 123 * 1024;
pub const ContractsMaxDebugBufferLen: u32 = 2 * 1024 * 1024;
pub const ContractsMaxDelegateDependencies: u32 = 32;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why did you miss to remove ContractsMaxDelegateDependencies ?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah, because of this. Might be worth to add a TODO with an issue to remove it as soon as the migration to remove contracts storage is done.

Comment on lines +98 to +111
// `ContractInfo` struct that we need for `ClearContractsChildTries` but pallet-contracts
// doesn't expose publicly.
#[derive(Encode, Decode, Clone, PartialEq, Eq, RuntimeDebug, TypeInfo, MaxEncodedLen)]
pub struct ContractInfo {
pub trie_id: TrieId,
pub code_hash: CodeHash,
pub storage_bytes: u32,
pub storage_items: u32,
pub storage_byte_deposit: Balance,
pub storage_item_deposit: Balance,
pub storage_base_deposit: Balance,
pub delegate_dependencies:
BoundedBTreeMap<CodeHash, Balance, ContractsMaxDelegateDependencies>,
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Verifiable here and here. I see the visibility level only of trie_id, code_hash, storage_byte_deposit to be public, but not the other fields.

@maltekliemann maltekliemann added s:accepted This pull request is ready for merge and removed s:review-needed The pull request requires reviews labels Dec 4, 2024
@mergify mergify bot merged commit ca88b16 into main Dec 4, 2024
25 checks passed
@mergify mergify bot deleted the mkl-increase-ed branch December 4, 2024 23:00
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
s:accepted This pull request is ready for merge
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants