-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 47
refactor: batch updating of asset team #869
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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'm realising this needs to be changed, but in order for this to work it seems that I'd have to re-run benchmarks? I'll definitely need guidance for that, I have never done this before.
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, that is correct. I think it would make sense to tackle benchmarks in a separate PR tho at the end of all changes, since benchmarking itself has some "fixed costs" which we could lower if we were to batch all changes into one benchmarking operation.
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.
But in general, what you would need to do, is to pre-populate the storage with as many pools as the theoretical maximum, and then use the range of possible inputs to pass to the extrinsic. You can see an example of it for the
create_pool_polynomialbenchmark here:kilt-node/pallets/pallet-bonded-coins/src/benchmarking.rs
Line 247 in 67c3d65
reset_team(N). That should be enough.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'm not sure I understand, 701410c already makes changes in line with the snippet you linked to, but I still can't make the change I suggested in #869 (comment) because
default_weights.rshas not been updated (the compiler complains thatthis function takes 0 arguments but 1 argument was supplied). Should I just manually mess around in thedefault_weights.rsfor now until it compiles, even though it's an autogenerated file?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.
Just leave the previous weight for now. Once the new benchmarks are run, the pallet will complain that it now requires one parameter, and then you can fill in the result of the benchmarks. Sorry I did not see the commit you previously linked. But yeah, just leave the old weight for the extrinsic. As soon as the new benchmarks are run, the code won't compile and you will update that. As a temporary solution, you COULD also update the weight file, since it will be overwritten anyway upon new benchmarks, but I would not recommend that.