Move execution parameter to separate account - V0.37

[janezpodhostnik]

Read the metering settings from a different account.

Whenever unrelated data would change on the service account, the execution parameters would get evicted from the cache (and since they are a dependency, all programs would also get evicted).

Moving execution parameters to its own dedicated account is a solution for this.

This is a short-medium term solution. The proper solution would be to put the execution parameters into the dynamic protocol state. Which would simplify the programs cache logic and remove the need for the execution parameters to be on a special account.

The newly create account will have the metering settings in storage. They will be copied from the service account with the following transaction:

import "FlowServiceAccount"
				
transaction() {
	prepare(account: auth(Storage) &Account) {

		account.storage.load<{UInt64: UInt64}>(from: /storage/executionEffortWeights)
		account.storage.save(FlowServiceAccount.getExecutionEffortWeights(), to: /storage/executionEffortWeights)

		account.storage.load<UInt64>(from: /storage/executionMemoryLimit)
		account.storage.save(FlowServiceAccount.getExecutionMemoryLimit(), to: /storage/executionMemoryLimit)

                // ExecutionMemoryWeight are not set, so this is skipped because getExecutionMemoryWeights() panics
		// account.storage.load<{UInt64: UInt64}>(from: /storage/executionMemoryWeights)
		// account.storage.save(FlowServiceAccount.getExecutionMemoryWeights(), to: /storage/executionMemoryWeights)

	}
}

This is sufficient for FVM to start consuming this data. For users there are additional steps needed, that are described here: #6894

TODO:

• create account on mainnet
• create account on testnet
• port to master

[zhangchiqing]

why are they 000s?

if becaseu we haven't created them, then better add a TODO here.

[janezpodhostnik]

yeah, we haven't added them yet.
That's not a valid address so its going to break if anyone tries to use it.

I plan to add the testnet address tomorrow, I'll add a todo for the mainnet one

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 27.36842% with 69 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 41.49%. Comparing base (ad39920) to head (61c2b34).
Report is 2 commits behind head on v0.37.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
state/protocol/mock/snapshot_execution_subset.go	0.00%	50 Missing ⚠️
...rotocol/mock/snapshot_execution_subset_provider.go	0.00%	19 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##            v0.37    #6891      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   41.51%   41.49%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files        2033     2035       +2     
  Lines      181521   181604      +83     
==========================================
- Hits        75360    75354       -6     
- Misses      99926   100010      +84     
- Partials     6235     6240       +5     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	41.49% <27.36%> (-0.03%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[joshuahannan]

Are you planning on making a PR to flow-core-contracts to add the other contract or do you need help with that?

[joshuahannan]

So you've already created this account and stored the values there on testnet?

[janezpodhostnik]

yes

[vishalchangrani]

I do not see those parameters here - https://www.flowview.app/account/0xa71b77409f5acbc1/public 😕

[vishalchangrani]

nvm i see it https://testnet.flowview.app/account/0xa71b77409f5acbc1/public