Match function names from plutus-script-utils

[locallycompact]

This is one step on the way to making it easier to test with different ScriptContexts.

[github-actions]

Transaction costs

Sizes and execution budgets for Hydra protocol transactions. Note that unlisted parameters are currently using arbitrary values and results are not fully deterministic and comparable to previous runs.

Metadata
Generated at	2024-10-01 20:08:48.077770047 UTC
Max. memory units	14000000
Max. CPU units	10000000000
Max. tx size (kB)	16384

Script summary

Name	Hash	Size (Bytes)
νInitial	d08c4d074d2155de1d5127a718fc61a7acbc8648b6032b3d0571f209	3799
νCommit	187ae86376f0acb38df9da73271bef525aed468dcd1771f0e98cee88	1743
νHead	2ee477c60839936be49a50030690865b5bed4db8cd2f05bf255ac680	10068
μHead	26decf82220fb7f84ff10eacccaa36ffd7ee29a34d5b80300a7a53d4*	4508
νDeposit	c2117fd9ebdee3e96b81fd67ff7092d638926415c10f1f7e5a267ad0	2791

• The minting policy hash is only usable for comparison. As the script is parameterized, the actual script is unique per head.

Init transaction costs

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	5097	5.98	2.37	0.44
2	5295	7.09	2.80	0.46
3	5499	8.37	3.30	0.48
5	5899	11.32	4.48	0.53
10	6907	18.02	7.12	0.65
57	16353	82.89	32.79	1.78

Commit transaction costs

This uses ada-only outputs for better comparability.

UTxO	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	569	10.52	4.15	0.29
2	752	13.86	5.65	0.34
3	941	17.33	7.20	0.38
5	1317	24.65	10.44	0.48
10	2257	45.22	19.36	0.75
20	4121	95.99	40.76	1.40

CollectCom transaction costs

Parties	UTxO (bytes)	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	57	560	22.14	8.66	0.42
2	114	671	33.03	13.08	0.54
3	169	782	47.43	18.93	0.70
4	226	897	57.69	23.35	0.82
5	283	1004	76.25	30.96	1.03
6	339	1116	96.86	39.48	1.27

Cost of Decrement Transaction

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	664	17.91	7.88	0.38
2	776	18.62	8.81	0.40
3	906	20.36	10.29	0.43
5	1162	22.76	12.62	0.48
10	2079	33.35	20.34	0.66
50	8074	98.18	74.72	1.84

Close transaction costs

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	667	20.07	9.03	0.41
2	792	21.57	10.43	0.43
3	932	22.95	11.81	0.46
5	1178	25.88	14.59	0.52
10	1984	33.98	22.31	0.67
49	8098	97.88	83.27	1.90

Contest transaction costs

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	672	25.86	11.11	0.47
2	827	27.65	12.65	0.50
3	1049	30.21	14.81	0.55
5	1325	33.78	17.86	0.61
10	1927	41.92	24.94	0.75
40	6416	98.50	73.58	1.76

Abort transaction costs

There is some variation due to the random mixture of initial and already committed outputs.

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	4979	17.47	7.60	0.57
2	5150	29.20	12.88	0.71
3	5175	37.83	16.53	0.80
4	5411	57.90	25.71	1.04
5	5544	72.68	32.24	1.21
6	5692	93.76	41.73	1.46

FanOut transaction costs

Involves spending head output and burning head tokens. Uses ada-only UTxO for better comparability.

Parties	UTxO	UTxO (bytes)	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
5	0	0	4934	7.89	3.34	0.46
5	1	57	4968	9.02	4.05	0.47
5	5	283	5103	12.96	6.64	0.53
5	10	569	5273	19.20	10.45	0.61
5	20	1139	5613	30.33	17.48	0.77
5	30	1708	5954	42.04	24.77	0.93
5	40	2271	6287	53.17	31.82	1.09
5	50	2847	6634	64.70	39.03	1.25
5	81	4614	7687	99.47	60.99	1.73

End-to-end benchmark results

This page is intended to collect the latest end-to-end benchmark results produced by Hydra's continuous integration (CI) system from the latest master code.

Please note that these results are approximate as they are currently produced from limited cloud VMs and not controlled hardware. Rather than focusing on the absolute results, the emphasis should be on relative results, such as how the timings for a scenario evolve as the code changes.

Generated at 2024-10-01 20:10:47.464537414 UTC

Baseline Scenario

Number of nodes	1
Number of txs	3000
Avg. Confirmation Time (ms)	4.780594595
P99	9.439133019999948ms
P95	6.357651949999999ms
P50	4.542657ms
Number of Invalid txs	0

Three local nodes

Number of nodes	3
Number of txs	9000
Avg. Confirmation Time (ms)	23.502703680
P99	115.55204875000003ms
P95	30.53093435ms
P50	20.898854ms
Number of Invalid txs	0

[github-actions]

Test Results

503 tests  ±0   497 ✅ ±0   21m 57s ⏱️ + 1m 20s
160 suites ±0     6 💤 ±0 
  7 files   ±0     0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 2862fc9. ± Comparison against base commit 4aacf31.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[noonio]

Seems good; just need to understand why the cbox has changed on a few of the golden files!

plutus team says it's fine

[noonio]

@locallycompact re this: "plutus team says it's fine"; can you provide a link? Would just be good to keep the context around so we know why!

Otherwise, happy to merge.

[locallycompact]

We were informed over slack

[ch1bo]

@locallycompact re this: "plutus team says it's fine"; can you provide a link? Would just be good to keep the context around so we know why!

Otherwise, happy to merge.

We asked the plutus team why would the scripts change if we rename functions only and someone responded that they are actually not surprised by it. Seems like we have been assuming this wrongly and some step in the plutus-tx compilation pipeline (they did not know provide details) would be sensitive to renames.