Add loaded-accounts-data-size field to sim result

[tao-stones]

Problem

For issue #5992

Summary of Changes

• add loaded_accounts_data_size to simulation response (implementing proposal 2)

Note for reviewers:

By adding an additional field to JSON result, it is likely to be backward compatible - most JSON parsers and clients would ignore additional field, but not guaranteed for users perform strict schema validation. Would like feedback if this is an acceptable practice.

Fixes #5992

[mergify]

If this PR represents a change to the public RPC API:

1. Make sure it includes a complementary update to rpc-client/ (example)
2. Open a follow-up PR to update the JavaScript client @solana/kit (example)

Thank you for keeping the RPC clients in sync with the server API @tao-stones.

[tao-stones]

result of running in testnet that includes both unitsConsumed and loadedAccountsDataSize:

sol@dev-tao-osaka-1:~$ curl http://127.0.0.1:8899 -s -X    POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d '
   {
     "jsonrpc": "2.0",
     "id": 1,
     "method": "simulateTransaction",
     "params": [
       "AQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAEDArczbMia1tLmq7zz4DinMNN0pJ1JtLdqIJPUw3YrGCzYAMHBsgN27lcgB6H2WQvFgyZuJYHa46puOQo9yQ8CVQbd9uHXZaGT2cvhRs7reawctIXtX1s3kTqM9YV+/wCp20C7Wj2aiuk5TReAXo+VTVg8QTHjs0UjNMMKCvpzZ+ABAgEBARU=",
       {
         "encoding": "base64", "replaceRecentBlockhash": true
       }
     ]
   }
 '

{"jsonrpc":"2.0","result":{"context":{"apiVersion":"2.3.0","slot":331031558},"value":{"accounts":null,"err":{"InstructionError":[0,"IncorrectProgramId"]},"innerInstructions":null,"loadedAccountsDataSize":134105,"logs":["Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA invoke [1]","Program log: Instruction: GetAccountDataSize","Program log: Error: IncorrectProgramId","Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA consumed 883 of 200000 compute units","Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA failed: incorrect program id for instruction"],"replacementBlockhash":{"blockhash":"6JBouxHWGiJTam7f21kntii1MiVojfdRU8s61wxpdgUP","lastValidBlockHeight":288079773},"returnData":null,"unitsConsumed":883}},"id":1}

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 98.46154% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 82.9%. Comparing base (0ccb6d7) to head (2671a99).
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master    #6023     +/-   ##
=========================================
- Coverage    82.9%    82.9%   -0.1%     
=========================================
  Files         842      842             
  Lines      377389   377450     +61     
=========================================
+ Hits       312874   312917     +43     
- Misses      64515    64533     +18     

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[tao-stones]

spot checked transactions in testnet, PoC RPC returns exact same simulation results except with loaded_account_data_size field.

[tao-stones]

Hi @steveluscher , this poc is to add an additional field loaded_accounts_data_size to RPC's simulation results. Much appreciate if you can take a quick scan if I missed anything by modifying an existing RPC endpoint? 🙏🏼

[tao-stones]

@2501babe, just a heads-up about this PR that adds loaded data size to Simulation RPC result. It relates to the SIMD-0186 changes you are working on. I don't see any direct conflicts between the two, except we probably should communicate users that once your feature is activated, they might see significantly different values in RPC results (if this PR lands).

[2501babe]

i highly support this pr! letting wallets get the size from simulation and then set the compute budget after was exactly the flow i had in mind. will review next week

one thing worth noting is if you simulate a transaction and then add a compute budget instruction to it you may need to add 22 to the requested size to account for the compute budget pseudoprogram. we should report the correct size for whatever transaction we are given but whoever does the frontend code should probably take that into account

we definitely want to communicate with foundation after this pr and my pr land. if end users implement a flow like "simulate, get the number, add compute budget instruction based on the number" then they should be future-proofed and it shouldnt be a problem if this goes live before simd186 activates

[steveluscher]

Sorry for the huge delay in reviewing this. Looks great!

If you have time, please do submit a PR to Kit to add this field to the RPC response. If you don't, let me know and I'll find someone.

[tao-stones]

If you have time, please do submit a PR to Kit to add this field to the RPC response. If you don't, let me know and I'll find someone.

Thanks for kindly reminding, haven't PR-ed in Kit, but happy to give it a try.