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

bug: pool gas limit issue #1479

Open
greged93 opened this issue Oct 21, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

bug: pool gas limit issue #1479

greged93 opened this issue Oct 21, 2024 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
bug Inconsistencies or issues which will cause a problem for users or implementors.

Comments

@greged93
Copy link
Collaborator

greged93 commented Oct 21, 2024

Bug Report

Current behavior:
When sending a transaction using eth_sendRawTransaction, some partners have received the following error message:

(error={ "code": -32603, "message": "[0x11b291e9cc554c29a88853988b474ace0902b7fd6ee02977d9406f820481ac9f]: transaction's gas limit 7000000 exceeds block's gas limit 10636872" }

We would expect the transaction to pass since 7000000 < 10636872.

Other information

The following document contain the parameters sent to the eth_sendRawTransaction endpoint: kakarot-error.txt.

Tasks

Duration: 4 hours

@greged93 greged93 added the bug Inconsistencies or issues which will cause a problem for users or implementors. label Oct 21, 2024
@tcoratger
Copy link
Collaborator

I investigated this issue in more detail:

  • With the payload, was able to reproduce the error by sending the raw bytes to our RPC.
  • I took the payload and put it in a JSON locally to try to make a unit test. I just made the following two changes in the pool validate for my test (because these two assertions are not at all related to the error):
    • I temporarily removed the test chain ID (when entering the mempool) because the chain ID provided by the payload (production chain ID) is not the one used in the tests so there is a mismatch
    • The user balance check because of course locally this address has no funds so it would have been necessary to fund it and I would have spent more time investigating for nothing because it was just a question of validating the eth_sendRawTransaction endpoint not the complete execution of the transaction.

So my best guess is that this issue is ultimately completely related to #1478 and because we don't prune the pool, the transactions remain and for some reason this produces a conflict leading to the mentioned error. cc @greged93 @eugypalu @ClementWalter

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Inconsistencies or issues which will cause a problem for users or implementors.
Projects
Status: 🔖 Current sprint
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants