-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 86
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
lp-gateway: Emit more events when processing an incoming message #1550
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
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 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 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 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 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 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.
We will never see that. Upon error the state will be discarded. We would need to make this method
non_transactional
in order to see events of failures.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.
Ah ok, but making it
non-transactional
would not be OK given that we're calling the LP pallet right?I can also remove this, the one thing that is important here would be the test that confirms that an incoming xcm call is executed accordingly.
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.
If we removed the
transactional
component, we would have to ensure no storage is mutated until errors cannot occur anymore. However AFAIK, we can have transactional sub-scope withinprocess_msg
such assubmit
.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.
The inbound queue implemented by the LP pallet is marked as transactional, does that mean that we can mark
process_msg
as non-transactional then?https://github.com/centrifuge/centrifuge-chain/blob/main/pallets/liquidity-pools/src/lib.rs#L937
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.
Yes, that would be possible. However, we should keep extrinsics
transactional
and rather check, whether we can remove that layer from theInboundQueue::submit
impl ofpallet-liquidity-pools
. I had to introduce it in #1292 because otherwise the inbound handlers mutated storage even if an error was thrown. If we are 100% sure thatInboundQueue::submit
will be called by a transactional call, we can remove it fromsubmit
.I had to ensure myself via some local tests: If a transactional call
c
executes nested non-transactional callsnested_c
which mutate storage, then all storage mutations ofc
includingnested_c
are still rolled back if any error is thrown byc
.Transactional layers come with minor overhead:
transactional
layer to db which is only ~0.15% overhead compared to weight for oneRocksDb
write