Optional Signer Bump TX fails? | Stellar Developers | Page 1

lyric belfry Oct 9, 2023, 4:53 PM

#

I've tried working with optional signers when bumping a transaction and it seems that there is no way I can get it to work. The error I'm facing is TransactionSubmissionFailed("TxInsufficientFee") when submitting to the rpc a transaction like

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

which seems valid (?). Is it possible that the fee calculated by the rpc doesn't take into account preconditions thus the tx isn't getting accepted in the network?

languid parrot Oct 9, 2023, 4:56 PM

#

that would sound obvious, but your fee is not sufficient

#

did you preflight this tx?

#

it wouldn't pass even if you specify a higher fee - e.g. your readBytes are 0 in sorobanData ,which is not correct

#

but what happens here is I think you get too low inclusion fee (because we subtract at least the tx size fee from the fee, so your inclusion fee is around 100 stroops, if not less)

lyric belfry Oct 9, 2023, 5:03 PM

#

languid parrot did you preflight this tx?

yep I'm using the same bindings from the soroban tools to submit to the network iirc

#

mhm let me check again though

languid parrot Oct 9, 2023, 5:04 PM

#

then likely something is broken - there shouldn't be 0 readBytes

lyric belfry Oct 9, 2023, 5:04 PM

#

sorobandata 0 sounds suspicious

languid parrot Oct 9, 2023, 5:04 PM

#

and 0 refundableFee

#

these both should be >0 for bump ops

lyric belfry Oct 9, 2023, 5:06 PM

#

Ahh yea I'm not simulating the tx with the envelope I'm submitting.

#

I think I went for that approach since the soroban tools bindings don't allow to multisign for what I've seen.

languid parrot Oct 9, 2023, 5:15 PM

#

hmm, not sure about the client flows, but in general simulation should be completely decoupled from signing

lyric belfry Oct 9, 2023, 5:18 PM

#

languid parrot hmm, not sure about the client flows, but in general simulation should be comple...

yeah but the client's code flow is you have a tx -> Client::prepare_and_submit() which only takes one signer and then builds the envelope. I'll have to take make the signing in my code I think.

#

(or open a pr for soroban tools, I think that the client in there is gold for interacting with Futurenet/now testnet from rust)

languid parrot Oct 9, 2023, 5:19 PM

#

yeah, this probably needs to be refactored/redesigned to be more modular

lyric belfry Oct 9, 2023, 5:19 PM

#

But ofc it depends on what the client should do, I'm not sure it was build to be used as a general purpose library

languid parrot Oct 9, 2023, 5:20 PM

#

I can't comment here - I wouldn't touch JS with a ten-foot pole 🙂

lyric belfry Oct 9, 2023, 5:22 PM

#

lol

#

it's the rust client within soroban tools btw

#

will likely open an issue and see if there's interest to add it and then open a pr

languid parrot Oct 9, 2023, 5:24 PM

#

ah, it's not even JS client, lol. anyway, the point stands - I would try to make the interface more modular/composable

#Optional Signer Bump TX fails?