This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 6, 2020. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
Minimal effective gas price in the queue #8934
Merged
Merged
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
7f4d825
Minimal effective gas price.
tomusdrw 04bb389
Fix naming, add test
tomusdrw 0335e92
Merge branch 'master' into td-min-eff-gas-price
tomusdrw b562009
Fix minimal entry score and add test.
tomusdrw 733091c
Fix worst_transaction.
tomusdrw b3a77c0
Remove effective gas price threshold.
tomusdrw 38debef
Don't leak gas_price decisions out of Scoring.
tomusdrw 9308c33
Merge branch 'master' into td-min-eff-gas-price
tomusdrw File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
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.
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.
Using
next()
here which looks correct (worst_transactions
is ordered by ascendingscore
). However I noticed: https://github.com/paritytech/parity/blob/0335e927e5d2133ceba4b54579094f1b4d810eac/transaction-pool/src/pool.rs#L277Is the
next_back()
wrong then? Seems like it would check for the least worst transaction to replace.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.
Great catch, I'll prepare a test and fix that issue with
remove_worst
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.
Actually it's correct in
remove_worst
.ScoreWithRef
has a customOrd
implementation that is ascending if the internal score is descending. So the error is actually here, will make sure to add a correct test to cover this.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.
Looks good. Should this one also change to
next_back()
then?https://github.com/paritytech/parity/blob/b56200916dfb90149ab22901dac5ef951688974b/transaction-pool/src/pool.rs#L393
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.
Indeed, preparing a test case to cover that and a fix.