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

make billing more flexible in VRF 2.5 (#11909) #12072

Merged

Conversation

jinhoonbang
Copy link
Contributor

cherry-picking 2 changes on top of 2.9

jinhoonbang and others added 2 commits February 16, 2024 15:07
* make billing more flexible in VRF 2.5
	- percentage based billing
	- flat fee denominated in native

* fix linting issues

* address comments and fix failing tests

* run goimports

* fix linting issue
* allow 0 confirmation delays in VRF; use pending block for simulation in VRF

* fix script build error

* fix failing automation test

* fix more tests

* integraiton test wip

* add integration tests for pending simulation block and zero confirmation delay (only v2 plus) and add simulation block option to superscript

* Update core/chains/evm/client/simulated_backend_client.go

Co-authored-by: Chris Cushman <104409744+vreff@users.noreply.github.com>

* use pendingContractCall instead of low-level call contract

* fix eth_call_test.go

* handle nil gas and gasPrice in backend test client for estimateGas

---------

Co-authored-by: Ilja Pavlovs <ilja.pavlovs@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Chris Cushman <104409744+vreff@users.noreply.github.com>
Copy link
Contributor

I see that you haven't updated any README files. Would it make sense to do so?

Copy link
Contributor

I see that you haven't updated any CHANGELOG files. Would it make sense to do so?

settings:
autoInstallPeers: true
excludeLinksFromLockfile: false
lockfileVersion: 5.4
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please update your pnpm and do not commit this lock file downgrade

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes will do locally. this PR won't get merged to develop. This should not affect how this image will work on the off-chain side of things for CL nodes

@snehaagni snehaagni merged commit 902f3e7 into release-2.9.1-vrf-20240216 Feb 20, 2024
70 of 72 checks passed
@snehaagni snehaagni deleted the vrf-changes-rebased2.9.1-vrf-20240216 branch February 20, 2024 00:20
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants