- 
                Notifications
    You must be signed in to change notification settings 
- Fork 24
feat: add tracker for buffer unaggregated fees #324
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
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Gustavo Inacio <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Gustavo Inacio <[email protected]>
| Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 11127757675Details
 
 
 
 💛 - Coveralls | 
Signed-off-by: Gustavo Inacio <[email protected]>
ebeed53    to
    e61ad31      
    Compare
  
    | SenderAllocationMessage::NewReceipt(NewReceiptNotification { | ||
| id, value: fees, .. | ||
| }) => { | ||
| SenderAllocationMessage::NewReceipt(notification) => { | 
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 update mostly solves the problem but it's not 100% accurate. We have a system where we trigger a complete re-calculation of unnagregated receipts. When this happens, newer receipts that are in the queue would already be on the counter and that's why we check if id > unaggregated_fees.last_id so we don't have a double counter on that.
The problem is that current system for buffer needs them to be called via add instead of update to be added to the buffer counter. That means that information about what is in buffer is lost under higher loads.
For this to be updated accordingly, tracker would need to have an internal last_id meaning that the value is added to the buffer, but not to the total tracker.
This is not a big issue since the update  is usually called in rav requests which reduces total amount, but this issue must be tracked in case problems happen.
Signed-off-by: Gustavo Inacio <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Gustavo Inacio <[email protected]>
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.
lgtm
Closes #289