Expose txPriority parameter for customized transaction selection

[moreal]

• Added txPriority as an argument in the public constructor API.
• This allows external callers to specify the priority for including transactions in the block to propose.

---

(DX Team Jira issue card PDX-231)

[OnedgeLee]

To use txPriority parameter on the app, parameter have to be injected also on the ConsensusReactor, and have to be optioned by ConsensusReactorOptions, approved since changes are proper though.

#3546 (review)

[greymistcube]

It'll take some time before 4.0 gets released to mainnet. Perhaps we should merge this into 3.9-maintenance?

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 48 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

Label      : Extra Small
Size       : +39 -9
Percentile : 19.2%

Total files changed: 6

Change summary by file extension:
.md : +7 -0
.cs : +32 -9

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

• Fast and predictable releases to production:
  • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
    iterations.
  • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
• Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
  • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
  • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detected.
• Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
  • Small portions can be assimilated better.
• Better engineering practices are exercised:
  • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
  • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

• Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
  • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
  • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
• Change your engineering behaviors
  • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
    • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
    • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

• One line was added: +1 -0
• One line was deleted: +0 -1
• One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
  interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
• Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
  of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.

---

Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

[moreal]

It'll take some time before 4.0 gets released to mainnet. Perhaps we should merge this into 3.9-maintenance?

It's not a PR that needs to be rushed, but I don't want to be stuck for a month or more due to workflow. Since this isn't a hotfix, can I change the PR target branch to the 3.x-candidate branch?

[greymistcube]

It's not a PR that needs to be rushed, but I don't want to be stuck for a month or more due to workflow. Since this isn't a hotfix, can I change the PR target branch to the 3.x-candidate branch?

I think it'll be fine. We aren't strictly adhering to semantic versioning scheme anyway. 🙄

[moreal]

I realized BlockChain.ListStagedTransactions(txPriority) re-orders even if they're ordered with txPriority.

libplanet/Libplanet/Blockchain/BlockChain.cs

Lines 1113 to 1133 in 7480b13

	IEnumerable<Transaction> unorderedTxs = StagePolicy.Iterate(this);
	if (txPriority is { } comparer)
	{
	unorderedTxs = unorderedTxs.OrderBy(tx => tx, comparer);
	}
	Transaction[] txs = unorderedTxs.ToArray();
	Dictionary<Address, LinkedList<Transaction>> seats = txs
	.GroupBy(tx => tx.Signer)
	.Select(g => (g.Key, new LinkedList<Transaction>(g.OrderBy(tx => tx.Nonce))))
	.ToDictionary(pair => pair.Item1, pair => pair.Item2);
	return txs.Select(tx =>
	{
	LinkedList<Transaction> seat = seats[tx.Signer];
	Transaction first = seat.First.Value;
	seat.RemoveFirst();
	return first;
	}).ToImmutableList();
	}

This pull request may be stuck until I find a way to resolve this issue.