v1.18: Scheduler - prioritization fees/cost (#34888) #187
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## v1.18 #187 +/- ##
=========================================
+ Coverage 80.6% 81.6% +0.9%
=========================================
Files 827 827
Lines 224496 224469 -27
=========================================
+ Hits 181015 183209 +2194
+ Misses 43481 41260 -2221 |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /// Returns a reference to the priority details of the transaction. | ||
| pub(crate) fn transaction_priority_details(&self) -> &TransactionPriorityDetails { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
for the sake of backport readability, can you read these removed functions and annotate with #[allow(dead_code)]?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The meta data stored in transaction_state changed, so we no longer have a TransactionPriorityDetails. I don't think we should add back those unused metadata and code for calculating them.
I could add a block-comment around these removed fns if you think that'd help simplify the diff.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added block-comment from 50 to 97: c80d5fb
apfitzge
force-pushed
the
1.18-manbp-reward-prioritization
branch
from
c80d5fb
to
03dbd60
Compare
|
had to rebase due to 1.18 version being tagged, was causing sanity CI check to fail. |
…or Solana transactions In an ideal world over-reserving compute units would not result in faster transaction confirmation but if we optimize the compute unit limit to match the amount of CUs the transaction requires (+ a 20% buffer) the transactions simply do not go through in time. Perhaps this could be revisited at some point in the future e.g. when [this PR](anza-xyz/agave#187) is released and validators update.
…-xyz#187) * v1.18: Scheduler - prioritization fees/cost (solana-labs#34888) * add commented out functions - simplify diff
Problem
Manual backport of solana-labs#34888
Summary of Changes
Fixes #