secp256r1 signature fees #4472
secp256r1 signature fees #4472
Conversation
fee/src/lib.rs
Outdated
| u64::from(fee_features.enable_secp256r1_precompile) | ||
| .wrapping_mul(num_secp256r1_signatures), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@samkim-crypto we need to block activation until the minimum version is whatever this PR lands in (2.2 hopefully?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep, I will make sure double check before activating. It seems that you already put a note in https://github.com/anza-xyz/feature-gate-tracker/issues/65 as well.
apfitzge
force-pushed
the
secp256r1_signature_fees
branch
from
2ba78b5 to
6dbf058
Compare
apfitzge
added
CI
| /// Bools indicating the activation of features relevant | ||
| /// to the fee calculation. | ||
| #[derive(Copy, Clone)] | ||
| pub struct FeeFeatures { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Goal of this structure is so that we do not have a bunch of bool arguments that we always need, but also to not introduce the entire feature set which.
Keeping this makes it extremely obvious exactly which features affect the fee-calculation; and the FeeFeatures could even be re-used to avoid re-looking up in the feature-set!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
since needed features come and go, there will be a time FeeFeatures becomes an empty struct. I would think to keep it empty then (perhaps with a note or something to prevent innocent "cleanup"), so to keep calculate_fee() signature unchanged. wdyt?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah I agree with keeping it with a note, so that the design idea is not lost
apfitzge
force-pushed
the
secp256r1_signature_fees
branch
from
6dbf058 to
460c76b
Compare
apfitzge
force-pushed
the
secp256r1_signature_fees
branch
from
460c76b to
e59bf5a
Compare
| // in the future. Keeping this struct will help keep things organized. | ||
| #[derive(Copy, Clone)] | ||
| pub struct FeeFeatures { | ||
| pub remove_rounding_in_fee_calculation: bool, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do these need to be public, since only this model needs to know which feature(s) matter to fee calculation?
Problem
Summary of Changes
Built on top of #4354
FeeFeaturesto hold bools relevant to feature activations used in fee calculationFixes #