Skip to content

Conversation

@JayT106
Copy link

@JayT106 JayT106 commented May 7, 2025

Back port #237 to SDK v0.53

Should merge it after #1578 and #1588 get in.

Solution:
- remove the api

changelog
endBlock, err := app.endBlock(app.finalizeBlockState.Context())
var blockGasUsed uint64
for _, res := range txResults {
blockGasUsed += uint64(res.GasUsed)

Check failure

Code scanning / gosec

integer overflow conversion uint64 -> uint32 Error

integer overflow conversion int64 -> uint64
yihuang and others added 5 commits May 8, 2025 13:32
generic interface

generic btree

generic cachekv

generic transient store

support ObjStore

changelog

Update CHANGELOG.md

Signed-off-by: yihuang <[email protected]>

object store key

Apply review suggestions

fix merge conflict

fix snapshot

revert dependers
add basic support in sdk:
- add a TxExecutor baseapp option
- add TxIndex/TxCount/MsgIndex in context

Update CHANGELOG.md

Signed-off-by: yihuang <[email protected]>

fix misspell

fix lint

run gci

fix lint

gci seems not compatible with gofumpt
* Problem: no efficient way to collect fee

Solution:
- support an idea of virtual account in bank module, where the incoming
  coins are accumulated in a per-tx object store first, then accumulate
  and credit to the real account at end blocker.

  it's nesserary to support parallel tx execution, where we try not to
  access shared states.

more efficient sum

support SendCoinsFromModuleToAccountVirtual

fix test

fix test

* fix lint

* fix test

* fix test

* fix test

* fix test

* fix test

* fix mock keeper

* try fix lint

* try fix lint

* reuse code

* try fix linter

* Update x/bank/keeper/send.go

Signed-off-by: yihuang <[email protected]>

* algin panic call

* fix error handling

* try fix lint

* nolintlint generate falst postiive

---------

Signed-off-by: yihuang <[email protected]>
@JayT106 JayT106 force-pushed the jt/bp-fee-collect-support-parallel-tx branch from 5e13974 to 5762123 Compare May 8, 2025 17:38
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 2, 2025

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label Nov 2, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant