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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Add system fee refundable attribute #2905
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Add system fee refundable attribute #2905
Changes from 2 commits
18b7900
238f254
d8bcb25
f9fb12a
1cb4dda
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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'd still check
tx.Sender()
for being a contract address here. Contract addresses are predictable, one can precalculate it, send some GAS to it, use it as a sender in a transaction and deploy a contract in the same block (making regular address a contract address).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.
Or actually this can't happen because to be a sender an account should not just have some GAS, but also pass a witness check. Contract scripts are very specific and not supposed to ever pass it if they're not deployed. When deployed, a previous check is already sufficient.
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.
Could you, please, add
getSystemFeeRefundCost
method to the Policy manifest as far?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.
Could you, please, update the native Policy interop wrapper (https://github.com/nspcc-dev/neo-go/blob/master/pkg/interop/native/policy/policy.go)?
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.
Could you, please, update the Policy RPC client wrapper (https://github.com/nspcc-dev/neo-go/blob/master/pkg/rpcclient/policy/policy.go)? If I'm not mistaken, it can be done automatically with the help of RPC wrappers generator, @roman-khimov?
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.
Yes and no, those are hand-tuned l33t wrappers. Autogenerated ones can be used as a basis for new methods, but we need to have better comments (like other methods have now) anyway.
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.
s/Conflicts/RefundableSystemFee
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.
We have deprecated (c *Client) AddNetworkFee method that is about to be removed, but still have to give a proper response. @roman-khimov, do we need to consider its updating?
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.
Unless it goes away earlier than this PR gets in.