Added support for eth_createAccessList and sendTransaction support fo… #19798
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
CLA Signature Action: All authors have signed the CLA. You may need to manually re-run the blocking PR check if it doesn't pass in a few minutes. |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #19798 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 69.41% 69.39% -0.02%
===========================================
Files 990 990
Lines 37418 37432 +14
Branches 10039 10043 +4
===========================================
+ Hits 25973 25975 +2
- Misses 11445 11457 +12
|
Builds ready [0246556]
Page Load Metrics (1635 ± 51 ms)
Bundle size diffs [🚨 Warning! Bundle size has increased!]
|
jiexi
reviewed
Jun 28, 2023
| @@ -242,6 +242,7 @@ export default class TransactionStateManager extends EventEmitter { | |||
| if (txMeta.txParams) { | |||
| txMeta.txParams = normalizeAndValidateTxParams(txMeta.txParams, false); | |||
| } | |||
| console.log('add transaction, post normalization', txMeta.txParams); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do we need to keep this log?
BelfordZ
commented
Jul 17, 2023
| // dont use ethjs-query here because it will blow up about accessList | ||
| if (txParams.accessList) { | ||
| return await new Promise((resolve, reject) => { | ||
| this.query.rpc.currentProvider.sendAsync( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we just update ethjs-query? What will be the difference by using the provider directly vs. using ethjs-query?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pr for updating it
BelfordZ
force-pushed
the
transaction-access-lists
branch
from
7d04d32 to
2964536
Compare
Builds ready [2964536]
Page Load Metrics (1624 ± 56 ms)
Bundle size diffs [🚨 Warning! Bundle size has increased!]
|
|
This PR has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity in the last 60 days. It will be closed in 14 days. Thank you for your contributions. |
|
This PR was closed because there has been no follow up activity in the last 14 days. Thank you for your contributions. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
…r it
Explanation
Problem:
At the moment, we don't support accessList in transactions. This is a feature added by eip-2930, and in certain cases leads to gas used savings.
Solution:
At the very least, we should allow proxying eth_createAccessList calls to the connected network, and pass the transaction field
accessListto be passed in for signing. We also allowaccessListto be passed into estimate gas.Future considerations:
We can determine, for most cases, if providing an access list will amount to gas savings. There are however some cases where we wont know until after the transaction is added to a block, since the transaction and associated access list might be dependant on the state of a particular block, and become suboptimal in the next. We could explore ways of detecting these situations, but it would be pretty elaborate and so automatically creating accessLists was left out of the scope of this PR.
Fixes: https://github.com/MetaMask/MetaMask-planning/issues/870
Screenshots/Screencaps
Before
After
Manual Testing Steps
Pre-merge author checklist
Pre-merge reviewer checklist
If further QA is required (e.g. new feature, complex testing steps, large refactor), add the
Extension QA Boardlabel.In this case, a QA Engineer approval will be be required.