Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Namadillo: Fees #904

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

Namadillo: Fees #904

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

pedrorezende
Copy link
Contributor

This PR adds back the fees panel with its respective warning

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jul 3, 2024

@github-actions github-actions bot temporarily deployed to pull request July 3, 2024 01:19 Inactive
Copy link
Collaborator

@emccorson emccorson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good! I just a left of couple of comments and I would like to quickly check this again after the merge conflicts are fixed.

@@ -30,7 +30,8 @@ export const fetchMinimumGasPrice = async (
({ token }) => token === nativeToken
);
invariant(!!nativeTokenCost, "Error querying minimum gas price");
const asBigNumber = new BigNumber(nativeTokenCost.amount);
// TODO: this should be removed after indexer error is fixed!
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It looks like this is fixed now.

className="font-medium"
forceBalanceDisplay={true}
amount={gasPrice.data.multipliedBy(
gasLimits.data[txKind].native.multipliedBy(numberOfTransactions)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Will this still be correct in cases where a reveal PK is needed?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think I need to review it again after the batch tx PR gets in

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

With batch Tx in, RevealPk wasn't considered when calculating fees - it is overestimating though so will work as is (though is incorrect). We still need to determine how fees can be calculated when we have a batch with of Txs, and (currently) at most 2 Tx types in that batch (RevealPK + the type of other Txs). I'm up for taking a look, and we don't necessarily need to address that in this PR!

Copy link
Collaborator

@jurevans jurevans left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM! Left a comment about fee estimation - that can be handled separately, as it needs a bit of investigation and discussion!

@pedrorezende
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing it for now

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants