Fix Westend Teleport Weight

[apopiak]

Something went wrong with the XCM benchmarks for Westend which resulted in the default weight of 2 trillion being used for ReceiveTeleportedAsset.
This moves that weight back to the previous default of 1 billion so teleport XCMs can be processed.

Also bumps the spec version so the fix can be deployed.

🙏 to @NachoPal for the find.

[shawntabrizi]

I'm doing further investigation into the benchmark with this output.

[KiChjang]

Are there any other weights that got defaulted to 2 trillion? If not, this looks good to me

[apopiak]

Are there any other weights that got defaulted to 2 trillion? If not, this looks good to me

There, in fact, are, e.g.
https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot/blame/03fcdc4215c5a1b5207bb71ceaf764bd3f6f4d98/runtime/kusama/src/weights/runtime_parachains_configuration.rs#L80-L82
Coming from:
#3862

[apopiak]

6 results - 6 files

runtime/kusama/src/weights/pallet_elections_phragmen.rs:
  96  	fn remove_member_without_replacement() -> Weight {
  97: 		(2_000_000_000_000 as Weight)
  98  	}

runtime/kusama/src/weights/runtime_parachains_configuration.rs:
  80  	fn set_hrmp_open_request_ttl() -> Weight {
  81: 		(2_000_000_000_000 as Weight)
  82  	}

runtime/polkadot/src/weights/pallet_elections_phragmen.rs:
  125  	fn remove_member_without_replacement() -> Weight {
  126: 		(2_000_000_000_000 as Weight)
  127  	}

runtime/polkadot/src/weights/runtime_parachains_configuration.rs:
  80  	fn set_hrmp_open_request_ttl() -> Weight {
  81: 		(2_000_000_000_000 as Weight)
  82  	}

runtime/rococo/src/weights/runtime_parachains_configuration.rs:
  80  	fn set_hrmp_open_request_ttl() -> Weight {
  81: 		(2_000_000_000_000 as Weight)
  82  	}

runtime/westend/src/weights/runtime_parachains_configuration.rs:
  76  	fn set_hrmp_open_request_ttl() -> Weight {
  77: 		(2_000_000_000_000 as Weight)
  78  	}

[apopiak]

@kianenigma Can you comment on the Phragmen weight?
Not sure who to ask for the runtime parachains config ones

[shawntabrizi]

@apopiak remove_member_without_replacement is correct.

The other XCMs listed are not implemented in the XCM executor, so are also correct, as these XCMs should be invalid. (Maybe there is a better way to denote this).

[apopiak]

Maybe we could pipe some message through the weights generator that ends up as a comment over the weight?

[apopiak]

Both the failed checks should not apply. Can a team lead merge this? @shawntabrizi (Not sure how I'd fix the Cumulus build)

[shawntabrizi]

This PR can probably be superseded by: #4146

[joepetrowski]

This PR can probably be superseded by: #4146

As long as #4146 gets backported into this branch, then yes.