asset-hub-rococo: Extrinsic exceeds total pov size
#4559
Labels
I2-bug
The node fails to follow expected behavior.
Comments
|
Okay we found the problematic line of code: With the recent changes to also take the transaction size into account when ensuring that we don't run over the block size limit, this broke the asset hub parachain. IMO the best solution would be that the |
1 task
github-merge-queue bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 27, 2024
…4571) So in some pallets we like [here](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/5dc522d02fe0b53be1517f8b8979176e489a388b/substrate/frame/session/src/lib.rs#L556) we use `max_block` as return value for `on_initialize` (ideally we would not). This means the block is already full when we try to apply the inherents, which lead to the error seen in #4559 because we are unable to include the required inherents. This was not erroring before #4326 because we were running into this branch: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/e4b89cc50c8d17868d6c8b122f2e156d678c7525/substrate/frame/system/src/extensions/check_weight.rs#L222-L224 The inherents are of `DispatchClass::Mandatory` and therefore have a `reserved` value of `None` in all runtimes I have inspected. So they will always pass the normal check. So in this PR I adjust the `check_combined_proof_size` to return an early `Ok(())` for mandatory extrinsics. If we agree on this PR I will backport it to the 1.12.0 branch. closes #4559 --------- Co-authored-by: command-bot <>
github-merge-queue bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 4, 2024
Since the fix for #4559 was to add a codeSubstitute to the rococo-parachains, we should update the chain-specs in the repo. The json diffs are not super easy to review, so if you want to manually check: - Run for example `jd -o people-rococo.diff people-rococo-from-this-branch.json people-rococo-master.json` - Check in the resulting diff file that only `codeSubstitutes` field is changed
hitchhooker
pushed a commit
to ibp-network/polkadot-sdk
that referenced
this issue
Jun 5, 2024
…aritytech#4571) So in some pallets we like [here](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/5dc522d02fe0b53be1517f8b8979176e489a388b/substrate/frame/session/src/lib.rs#L556) we use `max_block` as return value for `on_initialize` (ideally we would not). This means the block is already full when we try to apply the inherents, which lead to the error seen in paritytech#4559 because we are unable to include the required inherents. This was not erroring before paritytech#4326 because we were running into this branch: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/e4b89cc50c8d17868d6c8b122f2e156d678c7525/substrate/frame/system/src/extensions/check_weight.rs#L222-L224 The inherents are of `DispatchClass::Mandatory` and therefore have a `reserved` value of `None` in all runtimes I have inspected. So they will always pass the normal check. So in this PR I adjust the `check_combined_proof_size` to return an early `Ok(())` for mandatory extrinsics. If we agree on this PR I will backport it to the 1.12.0 branch. closes paritytech#4559 --------- Co-authored-by: command-bot <>
hitchhooker
pushed a commit
to ibp-network/polkadot-sdk
that referenced
this issue
Jun 5, 2024
Since the fix for paritytech#4559 was to add a codeSubstitute to the rococo-parachains, we should update the chain-specs in the repo. The json diffs are not super easy to review, so if you want to manually check: - Run for example `jd -o people-rococo.diff people-rococo-from-this-branch.json people-rococo-master.json` - Check in the resulting diff file that only `codeSubstitutes` field is changed
TarekkMA
pushed a commit
to moonbeam-foundation/polkadot-sdk
that referenced
this issue
Aug 2, 2024
…aritytech#4571) So in some pallets we like [here](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/5dc522d02fe0b53be1517f8b8979176e489a388b/substrate/frame/session/src/lib.rs#L556) we use `max_block` as return value for `on_initialize` (ideally we would not). This means the block is already full when we try to apply the inherents, which lead to the error seen in paritytech#4559 because we are unable to include the required inherents. This was not erroring before paritytech#4326 because we were running into this branch: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/e4b89cc50c8d17868d6c8b122f2e156d678c7525/substrate/frame/system/src/extensions/check_weight.rs#L222-L224 The inherents are of `DispatchClass::Mandatory` and therefore have a `reserved` value of `None` in all runtimes I have inspected. So they will always pass the normal check. So in this PR I adjust the `check_combined_proof_size` to return an early `Ok(())` for mandatory extrinsics. If we agree on this PR I will backport it to the 1.12.0 branch. closes paritytech#4559 --------- Co-authored-by: command-bot <>
TarekkMA
pushed a commit
to moonbeam-foundation/polkadot-sdk
that referenced
this issue
Aug 2, 2024
Since the fix for paritytech#4559 was to add a codeSubstitute to the rococo-parachains, we should update the chain-specs in the repo. The json diffs are not super easy to review, so if you want to manually check: - Run for example `jd -o people-rococo.diff people-rococo-from-this-branch.json people-rococo-master.json` - Check in the resulting diff file that only `codeSubstitutes` field is changed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Asset hub rococo stopped producing blocks today a few hours after the upgrade to 1.12.0.
logs
In the logs we see that the reported PoV size is too large:
I introduced the check that is failing just recently #4326.
Usually this would just lead to an extrinsic not getting included in a block. But here block production is complaining about
set_validation_datanot being in the block. This means that the inherent does not get included. Since they get included in the block first, the working thesis is that we are using too much weight duringon_initializealready.Next investigation steps:
--wasm-overridesThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: