Skip to content
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

XCM: Deprecate old functions #1645

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 20, 2023
Merged

XCM: Deprecate old functions #1645

merged 1 commit into from
Sep 20, 2023

Conversation

gavofyork
Copy link
Member

Two old functions should be deprecated and have their code altered in line with capabilities of XCMv2 and above.

This means we can use the proper Unlimited form of weight limit rather than guessing weight from the local chain.

@gavofyork gavofyork added the T6-XCM This PR/Issue is related to XCM. label Sep 20, 2023
@gavofyork gavofyork requested a review from a team as a code owner September 20, 2023 12:05
@KiChjang KiChjang enabled auto-merge (squash) September 20, 2023 12:15
@KiChjang KiChjang merged commit e7d29bc into master Sep 20, 2023
11 checks passed
@KiChjang KiChjang deleted the gav-deprecate-old-asset-fns branch September 20, 2023 12:56
bkontur added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 10, 2023
…orted_asset` benchmarks (#1726)

# Description

## Summary

Previously, the `pallet_xcm::do_reserve_transfer_assets` and
`pallet_xcm::do_teleport_assets` functions relied on weight estimation
for remote chain execution, which was based on guesswork derived from
the local chain. This approach led to complications for runtimes that
did not provide or support specific [XCM
configurations](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/7cbe0c76ef8fd2aabf9f07de0156941ce3ed44b0/polkadot/xcm/xcm-executor/src/config.rs#L43-L47)
for `IsReserve` or `IsTeleporter`. Consequently, such runtimes had to
resort to implementing hard-coded weights for XCM instructions like
`reserve_asset_deposited` or `receive_teleported_asset` to support
extrinsics such as `pallet_xcm::reserve_transfer_assets` and
`pallet_xcm::teleport_assets`, which depended on remote weight
estimation.

The issue of remote weight estimation was addressed and resolved by
[Pull Request
#1645](#1645), which
removed the need for remote weight estimation.

## Solution

As a continuation of this improvement, the current PR proposes further
cleanup by removing unnecessary hard-coded values and rectifying
benchmark results with `Weight::MAX` that previously used
`T::BlockWeights::get().max_block` as an override for unsupported XCM
instructions like `ReserveAssetDeposited` and `ReceiveTeleportedAsset`.


## Questions

- [x] Can we remove now also `Hardcoded till the XCM pallet is fixed`
for `deposit_asset`? E.g. for AssetHubKusama
[here](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/7cbe0c76ef8fd2aabf9f07de0156941ce3ed44b0/cumulus/parachains/runtimes/assets/asset-hub-kusama/src/weights/xcm/mod.rs#L129-L134)
- [x] Are comments like
[this](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/7cbe0c76ef8fd2aabf9f07de0156941ce3ed44b0/polkadot/runtime/kusama/src/weights/xcm/mod.rs#L94)
`// Kusama doesn't support ReserveAssetDeposited, so this benchmark has
a default weight` still relevant? Shouldnt be removed/changed?


## TODO

- [x] `bench bot` regenerate xcm weights for all runtimes
- [x] remove hard-coded stuff from system parachain weight files
- [ ] when merged, open `polkadot-fellow/runtimes` PR

## References

Fixes #1132
Closes #1132
Old polkadot repo [PR](paritytech/polkadot#7546)

---------

Co-authored-by: command-bot <>
@Polkadot-Forum
Copy link

This pull request has been mentioned on Polkadot Forum. There might be relevant details there:

https://forum.polkadot.network/t/polkadot-release-analysis-v1-2-0/4451/1

franciscoaguirre pushed a commit to paritytech/xcm that referenced this pull request Jan 25, 2024
…orted_asset` benchmarks (#1726)

# Description

## Summary

Previously, the `pallet_xcm::do_reserve_transfer_assets` and
`pallet_xcm::do_teleport_assets` functions relied on weight estimation
for remote chain execution, which was based on guesswork derived from
the local chain. This approach led to complications for runtimes that
did not provide or support specific [XCM
configurations](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/7cbe0c76ef8fd2aabf9f07de0156941ce3ed44b0/polkadot/xcm/xcm-executor/src/config.rs#L43-L47)
for `IsReserve` or `IsTeleporter`. Consequently, such runtimes had to
resort to implementing hard-coded weights for XCM instructions like
`reserve_asset_deposited` or `receive_teleported_asset` to support
extrinsics such as `pallet_xcm::reserve_transfer_assets` and
`pallet_xcm::teleport_assets`, which depended on remote weight
estimation.

The issue of remote weight estimation was addressed and resolved by
[Pull Request
#1645](paritytech/polkadot-sdk#1645), which
removed the need for remote weight estimation.

## Solution

As a continuation of this improvement, the current PR proposes further
cleanup by removing unnecessary hard-coded values and rectifying
benchmark results with `Weight::MAX` that previously used
`T::BlockWeights::get().max_block` as an override for unsupported XCM
instructions like `ReserveAssetDeposited` and `ReceiveTeleportedAsset`.


## Questions

- [x] Can we remove now also `Hardcoded till the XCM pallet is fixed`
for `deposit_asset`? E.g. for AssetHubKusama
[here](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/7cbe0c76ef8fd2aabf9f07de0156941ce3ed44b0/cumulus/parachains/runtimes/assets/asset-hub-kusama/src/weights/xcm/mod.rs#L129-L134)
- [x] Are comments like
[this](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/7cbe0c76ef8fd2aabf9f07de0156941ce3ed44b0/polkadot/runtime/kusama/src/weights/xcm/mod.rs#L94)
`// Kusama doesn't support ReserveAssetDeposited, so this benchmark has
a default weight` still relevant? Shouldnt be removed/changed?


## TODO

- [x] `bench bot` regenerate xcm weights for all runtimes
- [x] remove hard-coded stuff from system parachain weight files
- [ ] when merged, open `polkadot-fellow/runtimes` PR

## References

Fixes #1132
Closes #1132
Old polkadot repo [PR](paritytech/polkadot#7546)

---------

Co-authored-by: command-bot <>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
T6-XCM This PR/Issue is related to XCM.
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants