Geth v1.12.2 #1090
Geth v1.12.2 #1090
Conversation
| @@ -2082,7 +2082,7 @@ func TestBuildSubnetEVMBlock(t *testing.T) { | |||
| } | |||
| txs[i] = signedTx | |||
| } | |||
| errs := vm.txPool.AddRemotes(txs) | |||
| errs := vm.txPool.AddRemotesSync(txs) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure if sync/async matters here, used sync to avoid creating a wrapper
| @@ -2644,7 +2644,7 @@ func TestFeeManagerChangeFee(t *testing.T) { | |||
| t.Fatal(err) | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| err = vm.txPool.AddRemote(signedTx2) | |||
| err = vm.txPool.AddRemotesSync([]*types.Transaction{signedTx2})[0] | |||
core/txpool/txpool.go
Outdated
| return shouldContinue | ||
| } | ||
| for _, subpool := range p.subpools { | ||
| subpool.IteratePending(callback) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder if we should just change the signature for subpool to IteratePending(f func(tx *Transaction) bool) bool
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why we havent applied this? ethereum/go-ethereum#27525
| } | ||
| pool.mu.Unlock() | ||
| resetDone <- newHead | ||
| p.reorgFeed.Send(core.NewTxPoolReorgEvent{Head: newHead}) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
reorgFeed is added here compared to upstream.
| // BlobPool is the transaction pool dedicated to EIP-4844 blob transactions. | ||
| // | ||
| // Blob transactions are special snowflakes that are designed for a very specific | ||
| // purpose (rollups) and are expected to adhere to that specific use case. These |
| // - The first observation is that comparing 1559 base fees or 4844 blob fees | ||
| // needs to happen in the context of their dynamism. Since these fees jump | ||
| // up or down in ~1.125 multipliers (at max) across blocks, comparing fees | ||
| // in two transactions should be based on log1.125(fee) to eliminate noise. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this true that they will increase at max of 1.125 of the current base fee? I think that may be incorrect for EIP-1559
There was a problem hiding this comment.
cc @abi87 who just pointed this out to me today
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems to me it was the original intention (see ethereum/EIPs#1559) but that is not strictly true anymore in https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-1559.md nor in the implementation.
To be clear, I understand fee changes are still capped, but not of 1/changeDemon (which is 1/8 or 12,5% as mentioned above). changeDemon seems a smoothing parameter to control fee dynamics.
Why this should be merged
Updates shared code with go-ethereum
How this works
Takes recent changes from the upstream repository, v1.12.0..v1.12.2. Steps:
How this was tested
CI, manual testing pending
How is this documented
Not yet