Rel 2.0.x: Subjective CPU billing cleos enhancement and adding subjective_cpu_bill to /v1/chain/get_account result

[linhuang-blockone]

Change Description

This PR adds subjective_cpu_bill to /v1/chain/get_account result and adds a new entity subjective cpu bandwidth to cleos get_account command. An example output looks like

permissions:
     owner     1:    1 EOS8Dq1KosJ9PMn1vKQK3TbiihgfUiDBUsz471xaCE6eYUssPB1KY
        active     1:    1 EOS8Dq1KosJ9PMn1vKQK3TbiihgfUiDBUsz471xaCE6eYUssPB1KY
memory:
     quota:       unlimited  used:      2.66 KiB

net bandwidth:
     used:               unlimited
     available:          unlimited
     limit:              unlimited

cpu bandwidth:
     used:               unlimited
     available:          unlimited
     limit:              unlimited

subjective cpu bandwidth:
     used:               186 us

Change Type

Select ONE:

• Documentation

• Stability bug fix

• Other

• Other - special case

Testing Changes

Select ANY that apply:

• New Tests

• Existing Tests

• Test Framework

• CI System

• Other

Manual testing.

Consensus Changes

• Consensus Changes

API Changes

• API Changes

Documentation Additions

• Documentation Additions

A new subjective cpu bandwidth: is added to cleos get_account command to display the used subjective cpu of the account. Please see above example output.

[heifner]

I had no idea that would work:
https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/command/target_link_libraries.html#cyclic-dependencies-of-static-libraries

However, I'm not sure if we should do this or use the method providers of plugin_interface. I'm personally not a huge fan of the plugin_interface but that is the current way this is done. Thoughts @larryk85

[linhuang-blockone]

I will look into how to use plugin_interface.

[linhuang-blockone]

Do you know an existing code example? I saw register and subscribe of method providers. But it is immediately clear to me how to use it.

[heifner]

This needs to be optional so that old cleos will work with new nodeos. Please test with new cleos <-> old nodeos and old cleos <-> new nodeos.

[linhuang-blockone]

Thanks. Will change and test different versions of cleos.

[linhuang-blockone]

I have tested with different versions of nodeos and cleos. cleos worked in all combinations.

[arhag]

I would think this would make more sense as a field in its own structure similar to net_limit and cpu_limit. This is basically the used field in account_resource_limit. And eventually (maybe not now?) we will want the max and available too.

[linhuang-blockone]

Thanks. I will do that.

[heifner]

I think it would be better to not print the section at all if not available. Most of the time it would be true to report 0 as it would not have subjective billing. However, we have released versions that have subjective billing but will not return a subjective bill amount.

[linhuang-blockone]

Will change.

[linhuang-blockone]

I will not log only when it is not valid.

[linhuang-blockone]

get_subjective_bill in subjective_billing.hpp always returns a value (returning 0 when subjective billing is disabled or not available). Looks like we need another API to tell if subject billing amount is present. Do that in 2.1.x?

[heifner]

There is a difference from a nodeos not having the code of this PR vs having subject billing disabled. If nodeos has this PR code then 0 is the correct response to print as that indicates either there is no subjective billing on the node or the account has no subjective billing applied to it. Either way there is no subjective billing for that account.

As for an indication if a node has subjective billing enabled or not at all, that should be a different api call. That api call if added would need to indicate if it is enable for API calls or P2P calls or both. In the future that api call might also provide information on any configurable values of subjective billing.

[linhuang-blockone]

Thanks for explanation.