8000 [API] Show computation costs to StructLog transaction trace by hyunsooda · Pull Request #2090 · klaytn/klaytn · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Aug 19, 2024. It is now read-only.

[API] Show computation costs to StructLog transaction trace #2090

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jan 18, 2024
Merged

[API] Show computation costs to StructLog transaction trace #2090

merged 6 commits into from
Jan 18, 2024

Conversation

hyunsooda
Copy link
Contributor

Proposed changes

Added two fields, computationCostTotal and computationCostUsed in debug.trace* APIs.

> debug.traceTransaction("0x58c1096e91560a0aae81332241168d1515729d29098e6899dcb22804ef1635a9")
{
  failed: false,
  gas: 21546,
  returnValue: "000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000007b",
  structLogs: [{
      computationCostTotal: 150000000,
      computationCostUsed: 120,
      gas: 146,
      gasCost: 3,
      ...
  }, {
      computationCostTotal: 150000000,
      computationCostUsed: 310,
      gas: 143,
      gasCost: 3,
      memory: [],
      op: "DUP1",
      ...
  }, 
  ...

Types of changes

Please put an x in the boxes related to your change.

  • Bugfix
  • New feature or enhancement
  • Others

Checklist

Put an x in the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR. If you're unsure about any of them, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! This is simply a reminder of what we are going to look for before merging your code.

  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING GUIDELINES doc
  • I have signed the CLA
  • Lint and unit tests pass locally with my changes ($ make test)
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • I have added necessary documentation (if appropriate)
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

Related issues

  • Please leave the issue numbers or links related to this PR here.

Further comments

If this is a relatively large or complex change, kick off the discussion by explaining why you chose the solution you did and what alternatives you considered, etc...

@hyunsooda
Copy link
Contributor Author

@blukat29,

Consider removing the Computation field from the StructLog struct to reduce its size. This value can be derived within the loop as ComputationCostLimit - OpcodeCC. Let me know if this approach is acceptable.

@blukat29
Copy link
Contributor

@hyunsooda But the computation field is not Limit - opcodeCC, it's ComputationCostLimit - ComputationCostSum. It's inconvenient to sum up all opcodeCCs from the trace.

@hyunsooda
Copy link
Contributor Author

The calculation is equivalent to accumulating from the limit to each step's opcode CC, and this can be accomplished simply by

+ sum := cc
   for index, trace := range logs {
      if logTimeout {
          return nil, fmt.Errorf("trace logger timeout")
      }
+     sum -= trace.ComputationCost
      formatted[index] = StructLogRes{

Initially, I hesitated to implement this change, fearing it might compromise readability. However, I highlighted its value considering the memory-saving benefits, contingent on the number of StructLog instances instantiated.

@blukat29 blukat29 changed the title [API] Added new two fields, computationCostTotal and computationCostUsed [API] Show computation costs to StructLog transaction trace Jan 16, 2024
blukat29
blukat29 reviewed Jan 16, 2024
View reviewed changes
@hyunsooda hyunsooda merged commit 5786095 into klaytn:dev Jan 18, 2024
@blukat29 blukat29 mentioned this pull request Jan 22, 2024
Closed
13 tasks
@hyunsooda hyunsooda mentioned this pull request Jan 23, 2024
Merged
9 tasks
@blukat29 blukat29 mentioned this pull request Jan 24, 2024
Closed
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Reviewers

@sjnam sjnam sjnam approved these changes

@blukat29 blukat29 blukat29 approved these changes

@2dvorak 2dvorak Awaiting requested review from 2dvorak 2dvorak is a code owner

@kjeom kjeom Awaiting requested review from kjeom

@JayChoi1736 JayChoi1736 Awaiting requested review from JayChoi1736 JayChoi1736 is a code owner

@yoomee1313 yoomee1313 Awaiting requested review from yoomee1313 yoomee1313 is a code owner

@ian0371 ian0371 Awaiting requested review from ian0371 ian0371 is a code owner

@hyeonLewis hyeonLewis Awaiting requested review from hyeonLewis hyeonLewis is a code owner

Assignees

@hyunsooda hyunsooda

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@hyunsooda @blukat29 @sjnam
0