🧪 Experiment hrmp weighing

[JuaniRios]

What?

• Write hrmp functions benchmarks

Why?

• They are being called by the xcm executor, so are assigned a fixed weight. We need to make sure we are not going over that

Anything Else?

Next PR will run these benches

[JuaniRios]

• 💻 Run new benchmarks #352
• 🧪 Experiment hrmp weighing #351 👈
• ✨ New CT Migration benchmarks #346
• 👨🏻‍💻 Reorg extrinsics #345
• ✨ Multiple migration paths #341
• 💀 Add real weights to extrinsics #344
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

Join @JuaniRios and the rest of your teammates on Graphite

[graphite-app]

Graphite Automations

"Auto-assign PRs to author" took an action on this PR • (07/05/24)

1 assignee was added to this PR based on Juan Ignacio Rios's automation.

[vstam1]

How are you actually going to assign these weights? Or will you just run the weights and hardcode them in the XCM weights config?

[JuaniRios]

@vstam1 We are not going to use these weights for now. The struct that computes the XCM weight FixedWeightBounds assigns the same fixed weight to all instructions except Transact, SetErrorHandler, and SetAppendix.
What we are doing in this benchmark is make sure the fixed weight assumption is more than the actual benchmarked weight, which was the case after running the AWS benchmark.

We can add a new case to FixedWeightBounds to use our benchmarked weight for the xcmp notifications, but I don't think it's necessary for now.

[vstam1]

Could we add a test to our runtime that actually checks if these weights are lower then our hardcoded weights?

[JuaniRios]

Merge activity

• Jul 8, 8:35 AM EDT: @JuaniRios started a stack merge that includes this pull request via Graphite.
• Jul 8, 8:40 AM EDT: Graphite rebased this pull request as part of a merge.
• Jul 8, 8:43 AM EDT: @JuaniRios merged this pull request with Graphite.