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

Change WASM behaviour to default: burn vesting balance when instantiating contract #741

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Dec 12, 2023

Conversation

ysv
Copy link
Contributor

@ysv ysv commented Dec 8, 2023

…antiating contract

Description

Reviewers checklist:

  • Try to write more meaningful comments with clear actions to be taken.
  • Nit-picking should be unblocking. Focus on core issues.

Authors checklist

  • Provide a concise and meaningful description
  • Review the code yourself first, before making the PR.
  • Annotate your PR in places that require explanation.
  • Think and try to split the PR to smaller PR if it is big.

This change is Reviewable

@ysv ysv marked this pull request as ready for review December 11, 2023 16:48
@ysv ysv requested a review from a team as a code owner December 11, 2023 16:48
@ysv ysv requested review from dzmitryhil, miladz68 and wojtek-coreum and removed request for a team December 11, 2023 16:48
@ysv ysv changed the title [WIP][v4] Change WASM behaviour to default: burn vesting balance when inst… Change WASM behaviour to default: burn vesting balance when instantiating contract Dec 11, 2023
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ysv ysv left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Reviewable status: 0 of 4 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @dzmitryhil, @miladz68, and @wojtek-coreum)


testutil/integration/faucet.go line 133 at r2 (raw file):

func (f Faucet) collectRequests(ctx context.Context, leaderReq fundingRequest) ([]fundingRequest, error) {
	const (
		requestsPerTx   = 50

it seems that we have some issue in faucet parallelism
this tmp hotfix works & I will continue investigation later & push full fix on a separate PR

Copy link
Contributor

@dzmitryhil dzmitryhil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Reviewable status: 0 of 4 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @miladz68 and @wojtek-coreum)

Copy link
Contributor

@dzmitryhil dzmitryhil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Reviewable status: 0 of 4 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @miladz68, @wojtek-coreum, and @ysv)


testutil/integration/faucet.go line 133 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ysv (Yaroslav Savchuk) wrote…

it seems that we have some issue in faucet parallelism
this tmp hotfix works & I will continue investigation later & push full fix on a separate PR

Ok, is it the limit of the txs?

Copy link
Collaborator

@wojtek-coreum wojtek-coreum left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Reviewed 2 of 3 files at r1, 2 of 2 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @miladz68 and @ysv)

Copy link
Contributor Author

@ysv ysv left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @miladz68)


testutil/integration/faucet.go line 133 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, dzmitryhil (Dzmitry Hil) wrote…

Ok, is it the limit of the txs?

limit of requests which are packed into a single tx
I would say it is number of outputs in tx but that is not 100% true because single request might contain multiple account

@ysv ysv merged commit e1a48de into master Dec 12, 2023
8 checks passed
@ysv ysv deleted the yaroslav/v4-contract-inst-default-behaviour branch December 12, 2023 10:10
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.

3 participants