Development of a Java-SDK

@marc0olo for fee calculation you can check the specs here

what do you mean for unit conversion ?

1 Like

ahh thanks. didn’t catch that in the specs :sweat_smile:

with unit conversion I generally mean how we define the units in æternity. there was some discussion about that in this thread. but it seems like it isn’t defined yet how to name the units.

some call the smallest unit aettos and in the blockexplorer I saw something like picoAE. I would love to have this specified and published by the æternity team :slight_smile:

@noandrea do you know which SDKs already support state channel operations? we started implementing state channel support in our Java SDK and I just want to have a look at other implementatons.

The JS SDK supports state channels https://github.com/aeternity/aepp-sdk-js

For the unit conversion, there are no specific guidelines afaik.

AE supports Java sdk? Where can I find it?

are you sure that the JS SDK supports state channels? haven’t found the respective code in the repo :sweat_smile:

yes, Æternity has a (community developed) Java-SDK. we are actively developing it here:

you can follow the progress of new features here:

if you want to have access to new features in our dev-branch which aren’t released yet you can always use the most recent SNAPSHOT version :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Thank you for sharing. Thank you for working hard for the prosperity of the AE community.

@marc0olo super sure! The integration tests are here https://github.com/aeternity/aepp-sdk-js/blob/develop/test/integration/channel.js

1 Like

@noandrea
we’re currently working on the fee calculation in our JavaSDK, according to the MINERVA hardfork upcoming. Is there any possibility to activate the new fee calculation adaptions to our local test chain?
Additionally, do some example transactions with the new fee calculation exist for validating?
Thanks and greets,
Michel

ok I talked about that with Dimitar on telegram. so in our case (running default settings with network ae_devnet) the new fee structure automatically starts on block height 1.

it’s all fine.

I also talked with him about the best way to implement a calculation for the minimum required fees and came to the following process:

  • create and serialize the tx without adding a fee
  • then calculate fee based on the specification
  • create a new tx with the calculated fee (plus some fix amount assumed to be needed on top because bytesize of new serialized tx is bigger)

if anybody has a better approach. please tell us :slight_smile:

Yes that’s the way to go!
It can be a bit confusing because sometime the docs are not very accurate, here is how the calculation is done in python:

1 Like

Also don’t forget you can use the goggles app to verify the fee.

thank you! :slight_smile:

you should consider providing an endpoint for googles where people can check validity through api calls :wink: … I think it would be great to have such an endpoint in the core of aeternity if thats not too expensive

That is a very good idea, but I am afraid that it will be misused and taken as a service provided for transaction verification, and I am not sure about that.

I also thought about that. So maybe it should only be active in debug-mode. I posted this question in the public developer hangout thread :slight_smile:

we managed to calculate the minimum fees according to your solution, but we found an issue concerning the documentation
it says, the gas price multiplier is 1000000 (https://github.com/aeternity/protocol/blob/master/consensus/consensus.md#gas)
which is not sufficient
according to the python implementation, we choose 1000000000, which worked well
@noandrea - do you have an idea where this gap might come from?
Thanks and regards :slight_smile:

yes, the 1M is the minimum gas price set at governance level (it can never be lower than that since it is part of the consensus), while 1Bn is the minimum configured value set for miners, and it can be changed.

So if you set 1M as minimum gas price you are correct on a governance level but it will be included only if the miner has changed the default value for gas price to 1M. Therefore I suggest you to put the base value to 1Bn but leave it configurable for the future.

2 Likes

@noandrea - thanks for the clarification, we will keep it configurable

Today we published a new release v1.1.0 that allows creation/recovery of HD wallets as well as automated fee calculation for transactions:

4 Likes