-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 91
feat: support query gas limit flag #368
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
Open
thomas-nguy
wants to merge
17
commits into
cosmos:main
Choose a base branch
from
thomas-nguy:thomas/max-gas-query
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
17 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
0b071af
support query gas limit flag
thomas-nguy 7974e84
add change log
thomas-nguy e143ebc
Merge branch 'main' into thomas/max-gas-query
aljo242 55afc85
refactor
thomas-nguy f8a7fe2
Merge branch 'main' into thomas/max-gas-query
thomas-nguy 66ce0b5
Update CHANGELOG.md
thomas-nguy ffad7ca
Update grpc_query.go
thomas-nguy 8da2614
Update keeper_test.go
thomas-nguy ed271d9
Merge branch 'main' into thomas/max-gas-query
thomas-nguy ccd48f2
revert tx_args.go
thomas-nguy 2314796
Merge branch 'main' into thomas/max-gas-query
thomas-nguy 62b7879
Update CHANGELOG.md
thomas-nguy 4d3c2b5
Merge branch 'main' into thomas/max-gas-query
aljo242 bbbe7b1
Merge branch 'main' into thomas/max-gas-query
thomas-nguy 17f1ec1
add query limit i baseapp
thomas-nguy a3a0ec1
Merge branch 'main' into thomas/max-gas-query
thomas-nguy ea07859
Merge branch 'main' into thomas/max-gas-query
thomas-nguy File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this flag is meant to control the cosmos SDK query gas limit. im not sure if it makes sense to use it in this way.
imo it makes more sense to set the value like this:
root.go
this will make the SDK set a gas limit in context during query executions. then we can update the keeper calls to respect the value set here: https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/553f8955c3214c21c2755811aae5a8f3e021f0f8/baseapp/abci.go#L1282-L1286
keep in mind, this would enforce a query gas limit for ALL gRPC queries. if we want a separate gas limit (i.e. no gas limit for SDK queries, but one for EVM), i suggest we create a separate flag.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we want to support such use case? The
FlagQueryGasLimit
is meant to set a max gas limit for all Rest/Grpc queries, intended to prevent DOS attackMy original thought is that the x/evm module rpcs is a subset of those queries (as they all endup calling cosmos level rest/grpc) and need to follow the same limitation. Adding an extra flag may bring an additional layer of complexity, and confuse users.
I can do the change if it is really needed though
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
main reason i would think to separate them is because im unsure of the relation between eth gas units and SDK gas units. i know eth gas costs are quite calculated and well thought out, whereas the SDK's feels more arbitrarily chosen.
any thoughts here? @aljo242? i know youve mentioned we dont want to have too many ways to configure things these days, so maybe lets just go with a catch-all flag
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it makes sense to put it under the one flag