Double DEFAULT_PROOF_SIZE to support staking unbond via xcm transactor #2320
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
librelois
added
B7-runtimenoteworthy
|
Coverage generated "Tue May 30 11:12:29 UTC 2023": Master coverage: 70.87% |
Agusrodri
approved these changes
May 30, 2023
timbrinded
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 2, 2023
notlesh
added
D1-audited👍
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What does it do?
Lido does a call that is staking.unbond() which requires a proofSize of 82,498 bytes.
Our current implementation of the XCM Transactor precompile uses the DEFAULT_PROOF_SIZE which is 128Kb divided by two. This makes the call fail on the relay chain with
MaxWeightInvalid.The long terme fix should be to add a
proofSizeparameter in the XCM Transactor precompile, but for backward compatibility we should also provide enough proof size by default, that the goal of this PR.What important points reviewers should know?
Is there something left for follow-up PRs?
What alternative implementations were considered?
Are there relevant PRs or issues in other repositories (Substrate, Polkadot, Frontier, Cumulus)?
What value does it bring to the blockchain users?