Open maschad opened 1 month ago
Wouldn't this be a breaking change?
If yes, would it be worth basing off #2827 and getting it into the release?
After discussing with @danielbate on the PR
for large contract deployments, we determined it may be possible to do further chunk optimization thus reducing the need for the
chunkSizeTolerance
parameter. The impetus for this is due to the nature of thechunkSizeTolerance
parameter being difficult to set programmatically, given it's based on network fee fluctuations.The rationale is that if we know the account's balance, the transaction limit, contract limit and maximum configurable request body size, we can determine an accurate cost before deployment, and thus remove the need for this user provided value.
This should also improve the DX as it reduces the probability of a contract deployment failure.
This is a follow up once https://github.com/FuelLabs/fuels-ts/pull/2827 is merged.
IMO the above optimisations that @maschad mentions will definitely reduce the importance of the tolerance level. However unknowns at compile time such as the configurable graph QL body size limit means we should still keep this parameter, and this not introduce a breaking change.
@maschad I'm going to transition this whole issue to blob follow ups.
Follow up optimisations for #2827