Skip to content

Update spendable balance and ED spec #6869

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
wants to merge 6 commits into from
Closed

Update spendable balance and ED spec #6869

wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

@gui1117
Copy link
Contributor

@gui1117 gui1117 commented Sep 10, 2025

I think the doc is wrong in regards to the spendable amount: the formula is wrong in some situations.
Also it says that reserved balances add a provider but the reality in the code is different:

#[test]
fn foo() {
	ExtBuilder::default().existential_deposit(10).build_and_execute_with(|| {
		let acc = 3456;
		Balances::set_balance(&acc, 100);
		Balances::set_balance(&2, 100);
		assert!(Balances::hold(&TestId::Foo, &acc, 10).is_ok());
		assert!(Balances::hold(&TestId::Foo, &acc, 90).is_err()); // No provider reference.
		assert!(Balances::hold(&TestId::Foo, &acc, 80).is_ok());
	});
}
#[test]
fn foo2() {
	ExtBuilder::default().existential_deposit(10).build_and_execute_with(|| {
		let acc = 3456;
		Balances::set_balance(&acc, 100);
		Balances::set_balance(&2, 100);
		System::inc_providers(&acc);
		assert!(Balances::hold(&TestId::Foo, &acc, 10).is_ok());
		assert!(Balances::hold(&TestId::Foo, &acc, 90).is_ok()); // Some provider reference.
	});
}

I have to look deeper to double check, but this is probably more correct than before.

@gui1117 gui1117 mentioned this pull request Sep 10, 2025
Merged
midegdugarova
midegdugarova approved these changes Sep 17, 2025
View reviewed changes
@midegdugarova
Copy link
Contributor

thanks @gui1117 ! good catch

gui1117
gui1117 commented Sep 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
@gui1117
Copy link
Contributor Author

gui1117 commented Sep 22, 2025

don't merge as-is it was more a comment that a direct PR, I tried to improve the PR a bit, I am still not sure what is the exact spec, so I don't know what to write down.

Sometimes the account is dusted sometimes it is not. I couldn't find any consistency.

gui1117
gui1117 commented Sep 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
gui1117
gui1117 commented Sep 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
@CrackTheCode016
Copy link
Contributor

Hey @gui1117, thank you for this PR, any update on its status?

@gui1117
Copy link
Contributor Author

gui1117 commented Oct 1, 2025

When there is another provider, sometimes the amount below ED gets dusted sometimes not depending on the operation. A transfer will usually dust the account, reserve will not, I couldn't find any consistency, even the internal doc are contradictory so I reported this internally.
So the doc is ok for some cases and for some cases the dust doesn't get removed. As long as there is no actual specification I don't think I can improve the doc.

@gui1117 gui1117 closed this Oct 1, 2025
@gui1117 gui1117 deleted the patch-1 branch October 1, 2025 23:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@midegdugarova midegdugarova midegdugarova approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@gui1117 @midegdugarova @CrackTheCode016