eth_feeHistory#2432
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Ratan Rai Sur <ratan.r.sur@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ratan Rai Sur <ratan.r.sur@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ratan Rai Sur <ratan.r.sur@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ratan Rai Sur <ratan.r.sur@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ratan Rai Sur <ratan.r.sur@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ratan Rai Sur <ratan.r.sur@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ratan Rai Sur <ratan.r.sur@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ratan Rai Sur <ratan.r.sur@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ratan Rai Sur <ratan.r.sur@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ratan Rai Sur <ratan.r.sur@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ratan Rai Sur <ratan.r.sur@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ratan Rai Sur <ratan.r.sur@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ratan Rai Sur <ratan.r.sur@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ratan Rai Sur <ratan.r.sur@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ratan Rai Sur <ratan.r.sur@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ratan Rai Sur <ratan.r.sur@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ratan Rai Sur <ratan.r.sur@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ratan Rai Sur <ratan.r.sur@gmail.com>
garyschulte
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestions re: arithmetic and input validation
Signed-off-by: Ratan Rai Sur <ratan.r.sur@gmail.com>
garyschulte
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, just need to address effectivePriorityFee for legacy transactions post-london
Signed-off-by: Ratan Rai Sur <ratan.r.sur@gmail.com>
| private TransactionType[] transactionTypes = TransactionType.values(); | ||
| private Optional<Address> coinbase = Optional.empty(); | ||
| private Optional<Long> baseFee = Optional.empty(); | ||
| private Optional<Optional<Long>> maybeBaseFee = Optional.empty(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Optional<Optional<Long>> ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah because we need a way to encode if the basefee is unspecified. This is important for knowing whether to use a default base fee or the optional.empty the caller gives explicitly to the builder.
Signed-off-by: Ratan Rai Sur <ratan.r.sur@gmail.com>
|
I'm just concerned about the performance of this API when blockcount == 500 on calaveras. I wanted to try and after 2 minutes and several thread blocked we have the result. I also wanted to test with a blockcount == 10 starting from the block 6400 and I had 23 seconds. These blocks are filled by transactions What is the blockcount requested in the common case ? |
|
I think block counts of 500 would be very unusual but 10 sounds reasonable. |
Signed-off-by: Ratan Rai Sur <ratan.r.sur@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ratan Rai Sur <ratan.r.sur@gmail.com>
How about we silently map anything >10 to 10. We might fail some test cases in hive, but this seems like an acceptable tradeoff for now. |
Signed-off-by: Ratan Rai Sur <ratan.r.sur@gmail.com>
The spec for this implementation is listed in the issue below.
Fixed Issue(s)
fixes #2430
Changelog