forked from solana-labs/solana
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
cli: Simulate for compute units consumed during transfer #1923
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
Why don't you simulate nonce transactions?
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.
(Sorry for the late response, I was out for a bit)
We took this approach with the token CLI in solana-labs/solana-program-library#6550 to handle offline signers. Since offline signers can't access the network, we can't simulate the transaction before signing, so they'll need to use the default (or eventually static) compute unit limit.
When broadcasting the signed transaction, we need to create exactly the same transaction as the offline signers, so we use the presence of a nonce account as a guess that there are offline signers, since we can't tell from a
Signerif it's a pre-signer.While offline signers and nonces aren't directly related, I couldn't come up with another easy way of knowing if a transaction has pre-signers. Suggestions are very welcome!
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.
Sorry for the delay.. So the situation you describing is broadcasting an already signed transaction where all signers are pre-signers and we almost certainly used a nonce for creating the transaction? And the assumption is that if you're using a nonce it also generally means that this is probably an offline transaction in which you are using pre-signers?
Since the CLI knows whether pre-signers are being used and whether a blockhash was supplied explicitly, we can use those signals to decide whether to simulate or fall back to default. What do you think?
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.
Yeah pretty much, the situation is more specifically if any of the signers was a pre-signer, in which case there's a high probability that it was signed offline.
The main reason that I resisted that approach is that the
--signeror--blockhashargs are parsed by helpers likesigner_from_pathandBlockhashQuery, and the top-level normally never references them directly. But you're right, those are probably clearer than just the presence of a nonce account.If we do go with that approach, we already have the
BlockhashQueryand can disable the simulation if it'sNoneorFeeCalculator. For the pre-signers, we need to add another field to all of the command parsers, likecontains_presigners, and just check if the--signerarg is present. What do you think?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.
Hmm after thinking more I think the nonce account approach is a good enough signal for now. The offline signer / supplied blockhash signals are technically not perfect either. Makes me feel all of that could be cleaned up in a separate change but for now this approach is fine.