-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.6k
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
Simulate SigVerification correctly #5179
Conversation
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.
ACK 🎉
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.
the consumeSimSigGas name is misleading since it seems like it is simulating signature verification. Really what it is doing is consuming the gas for the size of the signature since that didn’t happen with ConsumeTxSizeGasDecorator since the signature is nil
how is it misleading tho? consumeSimSigGas seems like it consumes just gas?
it does, but really it is not doing signature verification gas consumption
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #5179 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 53.36% 53.42% +0.06%
==========================================
Files 290 290
Lines 17696 17701 +5
==========================================
+ Hits 9443 9457 +14
+ Misses 7516 7506 -10
- Partials 737 738 +1 |
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.
utACK
Closing in favor of #5195 |
There was an undetected bug in how signature verification cost gets simulated in #5006. This is a quick PR to fix the issue
Targeted PR against correct branch (see CONTRIBUTING.md)
Linked to github-issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work.
Wrote tests
Updated relevant documentation (
docs/
)Added a relevant changelog entry to the
Unreleased
section inCHANGELOG.md
Re-reviewed
Files changed
in the github PR explorerFor Admin Use: