This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 15, 2023. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 370
[xcm ] Compatibility fix for xcm benchmarks #2934
Merged
paritytech-processbot
merged 7 commits into
master
from
bko-compatibility-fix-for-xcm-benchmarks
Jul 26, 2023
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
de8c39c
Compatibility fix for xcm benchmarks (cause of missing companion)
bkontur c1e3117
".git/.scripts/commands/bench/bench.sh" --subcommand=xcm --runtime=as…
0824c46
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into bko-compatibility-f…
bkontur 23a5125
Fix for reserve_asset_deposited (https://github.com/paritytech/cumulu…
bkontur 718d282
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into bko-compatibility-f…
bkontur 1773336
Revert back hard-coded 1_000_000_000_u64 for `reserve_asset_deposited…
bkontur de3bc7a
".git/.scripts/commands/bench/bench.sh" --subcommand=xcm --runtime=as…
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
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.
It's not going to fit in a block at that size. If we want to prohibit it then we should be using max weight.
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.
probably thats the point, not to allow process
reserve_asset_depositedby default,this number was generated by:
and for
AssetHubswhere we allowIsReservefor transfer over bridge, this will have correct value in this branch: #2762There 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.
@franciscoaguirre wdyt? you added
reserve_asset_depositedbenchmark :)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.
before all this,
we had there hard-coded:
which is also not good
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
@gilescope @franciscoaguirre
so the question is,
if it is better to change:
to:
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.
rather than
T::BlockWeights::get().max_blockit's traditional to useWeight::MAXas that's the value we use everywhere else to mean not allowed.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.
ok, I will fix that for pallet_xcm with
Weight::MAXand use this PR as CompanionUh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
ok, we cannot go with
Weight:MAXnow because: paritytech/polkadot#7546 (comment) because it breakspallet_xcm::reserve_transfer_assets,so I reverted back that hard-coded
1_000_000_000_u64,anyway the result of this PR is that regeneration of weights will work in master again
but as a follow-up we need to fix and finish remote weight estimation (maybe with "standard xcm weights") plus:
paritytech/polkadot#7424
paritytech/polkadot#7546