1. Apr 26, 2024
  2. Apr 24, 2024
  3. Apr 23, 2024
  4. Apr 22, 2024
  5. Apr 16, 2024
  6. Apr 12, 2024
  7. Apr 10, 2024
  8. Apr 09, 2024
  9. Apr 05, 2024
  10. Apr 04, 2024
  11. Apr 03, 2024
  12. Apr 02, 2024
  13. Apr 01, 2024
  14. Mar 29, 2024
  15. Mar 27, 2024
  16. Mar 26, 2024
    • Pavel Orlov's avatar
      XCM Fee Payment Runtime API (#3607) · 3c972fc1
      Pavel Orlov authored
      The PR provides API for obtaining:
      - the weight required to execute an XCM message,
      - a list of acceptable `AssetId`s for message execution payment,
      - the cost of the weight in the specified acceptable `AssetId`.
      
      It is meant to address an issue where one has to guess how much fee to
      pay for execution. Also, at the moment, a client has to guess which
      assets are acceptable for fee execution payment.
      See the related issue
      https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/issues/690.
      With this API, a client is supposed to query the list of the supported
      asset IDs (in the XCM version format the client understands), weigh the
      XCM program the client wants to execute and convert the weight into one
      of the acceptable assets. Note that the client is supposed to know what
      program will be executed on what chains. However, having a small
      companion JS library for the pallet-xcm and xtokens should be enough to
      determine what XCM programs will be executed and where (since these
      pallets compose a known small set of programs).
      ```Rust
      pub trait XcmPaymentApi<Call>
      	where
      		Call: Codec,
      	{
      		/// Returns a list of acceptable payment assets.
      		///
      		/// # Arguments
      		///
      		/// * `xcm_version`: Version.
      		fn query_acceptable_payment_assets(xcm_version: Version) -> Result<Vec<VersionedAssetId>, Error>;
      		/// Returns a weight needed to execute a XCM.
      		///
      		/// # Arguments
      		///
      		/// * `message`: `VersionedXcm`.
      		fn query_xcm_weight(message: VersionedXcm<Call>) -> Result<Weight, Error>;
      		/// Converts a weight into a fee for the specified `AssetId`.
      		///
      		/// # Arguments
      		///
      		/// * `weight`: convertible `Weight`.
      		/// * `asset`: `VersionedAssetId`.
      		fn query_weight_to_asset_fee(weight: Weight, asset: VersionedAssetId) -> Result<u128, Error>;
      		/// Get delivery fees for sending a specific `message` to a `destination`.
      		/// These always come in a specific asset, defined by the chain.
      		///
      		/// # Arguments
      		/// * `message`: The message that'll be sent, necessary because most delivery fees are based on the
      		///   size of the message.
      		/// * `destination`: The destination to send the message to. Different destinations may use
      		///   different senders that charge different fees.
      		fn query_delivery_fees(destination: VersionedLocation, message: VersionedXcm<()>) -> Result<VersionedAssets, Error>;
      	}
      ```
      An
      [example](https://gist.github.com/PraetorP/4bc323ff85401abe253897ba990ec29d
      
      )
      of a client side code.
      
      ---------
      
      Co-authored-by: default avatarFrancisco Aguirre <[email protected]>
      Co-authored-by: default avatarAdrian Catangiu <[email protected]>
      Co-authored-by: default avatarDaniel Shiposha <[email protected]>
      3c972fc1
    • Tsvetomir Dimitrov's avatar
      Migrate parachain swaps to Coretime (#3714) · 90234543
      Tsvetomir Dimitrov authored
      This PR notifies broker pallet for any parachain slot swaps performed on
      the relay chain. This is achieved by registering an `OnSwap` for the the
      `coretime` pallet. The hook sends XCM message to the broker chain and
      invokes a new extrinsic `swap_leases` which updates `Leases` storage
      item (which keeps the legacy parachain leases).
      
      I made two assumptions in this PR:
      1.
      [`Leases`](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/4987d7982461e2e5ffe219cdf71ec697284cea7c/substrate/frame/broker/src/lib.rs#L120)
      in `broker` pallet and
      [`Leases`](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/4987d7982461e2e5ffe219cdf71ec697284cea7c/polkadot/runtime/common/src/slots/mod.rs#L118)
      in `slots` pallet are in sync.
      2. `swap_leases` extrinsic from `broker` pallet can be triggered only by
      root or by the XCM message from the relay chain. If not - the extrinsic
      will generate an error and do nothing.
      
      As a side effect from the changes `OnSwap` trait is moved from
      runtime/common/traits.rs to runtime/parachains. Otherwise it is not
      accessible from `broker` pallet.
      
      Closes https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/issues/3552
      
      
      
      TODOs:
      
      - [x] Weights
      - [x] Tests
      
      ---------
      
      Co-authored-by: command-bot <>
      Co-authored-by: default avatareskimor <[email protected]>
      Co-authored-by: default avatarBastian Köcher <[email protected]>
      90234543
    • Dcompoze's avatar
      Fix spelling mistakes across the whole repository (#3808) · 002d9260
      Dcompoze authored
      **Update:** Pushed additional changes based on the review comments.
      
      **This pull request fixes various spelling mistakes in this
      repository.**
      
      Most of the changes are contained in the first **3** commits:
      
      - `Fix spelling mistakes in comments and docs`
      
      - `Fix spelling mistakes in test names`
      
      - `Fix spelling mistakes in error messages, panic messages, logs and
      tracing`
      
      Other source code spelling mistakes are separated into individual
      commits for easier reviewing:
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'authority'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'REASONABLE_HEADERS_IN_JUSTIFICATION_ANCESTRY'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'prev_enqueud_messages'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'endpoint'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'children'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'PenpalSiblingSovereignAccount'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'PenpalSudoAccount'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'insufficient'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'PalletXcmExtrinsicsBenchmark'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'subtracted'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'CandidatePendingAvailability'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'exclusive'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'until'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'discriminator'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'nonexistent'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'subsystem'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'indices'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'committed'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'topology'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'response'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'beneficiary'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'formatted'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'UNKNOWN_PROOF_REQUEST'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'succeeded'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'reopened'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'proposer'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'InstantiationNonce'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'depositor'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'expiration'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'phantom'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'AggregatedKeyValue'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'randomness'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'defendant'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'AquaticMammal'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'transactions'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'PassingTracingSubscriber'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'TxSignaturePayload'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'versioning'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'descendant'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'overridden'`
      
      - `Fix the spelling of 'network'`
      
      Let me know if this structure is adequate.
      
      **Note:** The usage of the words `Merkle`, `Merkelize`, `Merklization`,
      `Merkelization`, `Merkleization`, is somewhat inconsistent but I left it
      as it is.
      
      ~~**Note:** In some places the term `Receival` is used to refer to
      message reception, IMO `Reception` is the correct word here, but I left
      it as it is.~~
      
      ~~**Note:** In some places the term `Overlayed` is used instead of the
      more acceptable version `Overlaid` but I also left it as it is.~~
      
      ~~**Note:** In some places the term `Applyable` is used instead of the
      correct version `Applicable` but I also left it as it is.~~
      
      **Note:** Some usage of British vs American english e.g. `judgement` vs
      `judgment`, `initialise` vs `initialize`, `optimise` vs `optimize` etc.
      are both present in different places, but I suppose that's
      understandable given the number of contributors.
      
      ~~**Note:** There is a spelling mistake in `.github/CODEOWNERS` but it
      triggers errors in CI when I make changes to it, so I left it as it
      is.~~
      002d9260
  17. Mar 23, 2024
  18. Mar 21, 2024
  19. Mar 20, 2024
    • eskimor's avatar
      Fix algorithmic complexity of on-demand scheduler with regards to number of cores. (#3190) · b74353d3
      eskimor authored
      
      
      We witnessed really poor performance on Rococo, where we ended up with
      50 on-demand cores. This was due to the fact that for each core the full
      queue was processed. With this change full queue processing will happen
      way less often (most of the time complexity is O(1) or O(log(n))) and if
      it happens then only for one core (in expectation).
      
      Also spot price is now updated before each order to ensure economic back
      pressure.
      
      
      TODO:
      
      - [x] Implement
      - [x] Basic tests
      - [x] Add more tests (see todos)
      - [x] Run benchmark to confirm better performance, first results suggest
      > 100x faster.
      - [x] Write migrations
      - [x] Bump scale-info version and remove patch in Cargo.toml
      - [x] Write PR docs: on-demand performance improved, more on-demand
      cores are now non problematic anymore. If need by also the max queue
      size can be increased again. (Maybe not to 10k)
      
      Optional: Performance can be improved even more, if we called
      `pop_assignment_for_core()`, before calling `report_processed` (Avoid
      needless affinity drops). The effect gets smaller the larger the claim
      queue and I would only go for it, if it does not add complexity to the
      scheduler.
      
      ---------
      
      Co-authored-by: default avatareskimor <[email protected]>
      Co-authored-by: default avatarantonva <[email protected]>
      Co-authored-by: command-bot <>
      Co-authored-by: default avatarAnton Vilhelm Ásgeirsson <[email protected]>
      Co-authored-by: default avatarordian <[email protected]>
      b74353d3
  20. Mar 19, 2024
  21. Mar 15, 2024
  22. Mar 14, 2024
  23. Mar 13, 2024
  24. Mar 07, 2024