-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
Dynamic priority fee #570
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
GabrielMartinezRodriguez
merged 6 commits into
master
from
gabriel/dynamic-priority-fee
Apr 13, 2025
Merged
Dynamic priority fee #570
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
fe1eb87
feat(txm): dynamic priority fee
GabrielMartinezRodriguez ce03e8d
chore(txm): code review
GabrielMartinezRodriguez a200a91
fix(txm): fixed tests
GabrielMartinezRodriguez c0dbd8b
chore(txm): renamed safeGetFeeHistory
GabrielMartinezRodriguez 4f5219b
chore(contracts): remove unknown folder
GabrielMartinezRodriguez 1356e03
chore(txm): await onNewBlock on start
GabrielMartinezRodriguez 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
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.
because
maxPriorityFeePerGashas no default, this transaction will then have a 0 value priority fee, which may make it unlikely to be included in most real networks. should we define defaults?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 this is a very rare case, because it happens only when the TXM already has a targetPriorityFee defined, then calculateTargetPriorityFee fails due to some network issue, and we also don’t have a maxPriorityFeePerGas. I don't think it's necessary to add defaults for such a low-frequency scenario. Additionally, in 99.9% of cases where calculateTargetPriorityFee fails, it’s because the node is down, so there's not much we can do anyway. And if 0 isn’t enough to include the transaction once the node is back up, the TXM will notice that and adjust the priority fee in a new attempt.