Introduce recursive minimum fee calculation by Jimbo4350 · Pull Request #1106 · IntersectMBO/cardano-api

Jimbo4350 · 2026-02-12T12:23:51Z

Changelog

- description: |
    Introduce recursive minimum fee calculation 
  type:
  - feature     
  projects:
   - cardano-api

Context

Additional context for the PR goes here. If the PR fixes a particular issue please provide a link to the issue.

How to trust this PR

Highlight important bits of the PR that will make the review faster. If there are commands the reviewer can run to observe the new behavior, describe them.

Checklist

Commit sequence broadly makes sense and commits have useful messages
New tests are added if needed and existing tests are updated. See Running tests for more details
Self-reviewed the diff

cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental/Tx/Internal/Fee.hs

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR introduces a new experimental API function to compute a minimum transaction fee via a recursive “set fee → rebalance → repeat” approach, and adds property tests intended to validate the behavior.

Changes:

Added calcMinFeeRecursive and RecursiveFeeCalculationError to the experimental fee API and re-exported them from Cardano.Api.Experimental.
Implemented recursive min-fee calculation and a helper to distribute surplus balance into outputs.
Added Hedgehog properties covering “well-funded succeeds”, “idempotent fixpoint”, and “insufficient funds fails”, plus updated an existing fee comparison test.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 4 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated 6 comments.

File	Description
cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental/Tx/Internal/Fee.hs	Adds the recursive fee calculation implementation and its error type.
cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental.hs	Re-exports the new recursive fee API from the experimental surface.
cardano-api/test/cardano-api-test/Test/Cardano/Api/Experimental.hs	Adds new property tests for `calcMinFeeRecursive` and extends an existing fee test.
cardano-api/cardano-api.cabal	Adds test-suite dependencies used by the new tests.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot · 2026-02-23T15:18:04Z

cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental/Tx/Internal/Fee.hs

+  | minFee == txBodyFee && L.isZero txBalanceCoin =
+      -- We have reached the minimum fee but there isn't a guarantee that
+      -- the inputs/outputs are balanced
+      return unSignTx
+  | minFee == txBodyFee && txBalanceCoin > 0 = do
+      -- We have a surplus balance so we modify the outputs to include it.
+      balancedOuts <- balanceTxOuts txBalanceValue unSignTx
+      let updatedTx = UnsignedTx (ledgerTx & L.bodyTxL . L.outputsTxBodyL .~ Seq.fromList balancedOuts)
+       in return updatedTx
+  | txBalanceCoin < 0 = Left $ NotEnoughAda txBalanceCoin
+  | otherwise =
+      let newTx = UnsignedTx (ledgerTx & L.bodyTxL . L.feeTxBodyL .~ minFee)
+       in calcMinFeeRecursive newTx utxo pparams nExtraWitnesses
+ where
+  minFee = obtainCommonConstraints (useEra @era) $ L.calcMinFeeTx utxo pparams ledgerTx nExtraWitnesses
+  txBodyFee = ledgerTx ^. L.bodyTxL . L.feeTxBodyL
+  txBalanceValue = evaluateTransactionBalance pparams mempty mempty mempty utxo unSignTx
+  txBalanceCoin = L.coin txBalanceValue


calcMinFeeRecursive only checks L.isZero txBalanceCoin / compares txBalanceCoin against 0, which ignores any non-ADA assets in txBalanceValue. A tx can have coin == 0 while being unbalanced in multi-assets. Consider checking L.isZero txBalanceValue and handling negative (or positive) non-ADA balance explicitly (and/or extending the error type accordingly).

calcMinFeeRecursive only checks L.isZero txBalanceCoin / compares txBalanceCoin against 0, which ignores any non-ADA assets in txBalanceValue. A tx can have coin == 0 while being unbalanced in multi-assets. Consider checking L.isZero txBalanceValue and handling negative (or positive) non-ADA balance explicitly (and/or extending the error type accordingly).

While this is true, balancing assets is much easier than balancing Ada, as long as assets cannot be used for paying fees. So we could just balance them before starting iterating (if we balance them at all). I would actually replace L.isZero with == 0

Copilot · 2026-02-23T15:18:05Z

cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental/Tx/Internal/Fee.hs

+      -- We have a surplus balance so we modify the outputs to include it.
+      balancedOuts <- balanceTxOuts txBalanceValue unSignTx
+      let updatedTx = UnsignedTx (ledgerTx & L.bodyTxL . L.outputsTxBodyL .~ Seq.fromList balancedOuts)
+       in return updatedTx


In the surplus case (minFee == txBodyFee && txBalanceCoin > 0), the code updates outputs and returns immediately. Updating output values can change the serialized tx size and therefore the minimum fee, potentially making the returned tx underfunded. It would be safer to rerun the fee/balance step on updatedTx (i.e. continue recursion until both fee and full balance reach a fixpoint).

Suggested change

-- We have a surplus balance so we modify the outputs to include it.

balancedOuts <- balanceTxOuts txBalanceValue unSignTx

let updatedTx = UnsignedTx (ledgerTx & L.bodyTxL . L.outputsTxBodyL .~ Seq.fromList balancedOuts)

in return updatedTx

-- We have a surplus balance so we modify the outputs to include it,

-- then recurse to ensure the fee/balance reach a fixpoint.

balancedOuts <- balanceTxOuts txBalanceValue unSignTx

let updatedTx = UnsignedTx (ledgerTx & L.bodyTxL . L.outputsTxBodyL .~ Seq.fromList balancedOuts)

calcMinFeeRecursive updatedTx utxo pparams nExtraWitnesses

In the surplus case (minFee == txBodyFee && txBalanceCoin > 0), the code updates outputs and returns immediately. Updating output values can change the serialized tx size and therefore the minimum fee, potentially making the returned tx underfunded. It would be safer to rerun the fee/balance step on updatedTx (i.e. continue recursion until both fee and full balance reach a fixpoint).

Yes. Also, if we are not iterating both fee and balance at the same time, it would simplify the logic to separate the iteration over fee from the iteration over balance completely: here we are checking that minFee == txBodyFee and that txBalanceCoin > 0 at the same time, for example

cardano-api/test/cardano-api-test/Test/Cardano/Api/Experimental.hs

Copilot · 2026-02-23T15:18:06Z

cardano-api/test/cardano-api-test/Test/Cardano/Api/Experimental.hs

+  oldFees H.=== L.Coin 236
+
+  newFees H.=== L.Coin 236
+
+  -- Recursive fee calculation appears result in fees that are ~ 20% lower
+  recFee H.=== L.Coin 193
+
+  H.assert $ recFee < oldFees
+
+  H.assert $ recFee < newFees


These assertions hard-code exact fee values (Coin 236 / Coin 193). This makes the test brittle to any future change in protocol parameters, CBOR encoding, or ledger fee calculation. Prefer asserting relationships/invariants (e.g. oldFees == newFees, and recursive fee is a fixpoint / <= non-recursive fee) rather than pinning to specific constants.

Copilot · 2026-02-23T15:18:06Z

cardano-api/test/cardano-api-test/Test/Cardano/Api/Experimental.hs

+prop_calcMinFeeRecursive_fee_fixpoint = H.property $ do
+  (unsignedTx, utxo) <- H.forAll $ genFundedSimpleTx Exp.ConwayEra
+  case Exp.calcMinFeeRecursive unsignedTx utxo exampleProtocolParams 0 of
+    Left _ -> H.success


This property currently treats a failure of calcMinFeeRecursive as success (Left _ -> H.success), which can hide real regressions. Since the generator produces a well-funded transaction, the test should fail on Left (and annotate the error) rather than passing.

Suggested change

Left _ -> H.success

Left err -> H.annotateShow err >> H.failure

Not really, but a comment with clarification would be nice.

cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental/Tx/Internal/Fee.hs

carbolymer · 2026-02-23T17:46:20Z

cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental/Tx/Internal/Fee.hs

+  minFee = obtainCommonConstraints (useEra @era) $ L.calcMinFeeTx utxo pparams ledgerTx nExtraWitnesses
+  txBodyFee = ledgerTx ^. L.bodyTxL . L.feeTxBodyL
+  txBalanceValue = evaluateTransactionBalance pparams mempty mempty mempty utxo unSignTx
+  txBalanceCoin = L.coin txBalanceValue


What about non-ada assets? Those have to be balanced as well.

carbolymer · 2026-02-23T17:49:38Z

cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental/Tx/Internal/Fee.hs

+      -- We have reached the minimum fee but there isn't a guarantee that
+      -- the inputs/outputs are balanced


I think this comment is not clear. What does it mean that there is no guarantee? Could you expand it?

I think this comment is not clear. What does it mean that there is no guarantee? Could you expand it?

Yes, do you mean other than Ada? Ada should be balanced because txBalanceCoin == 0, right?

I guess the author meant non-ada assets. This should be explained.

carbolymer · 2026-02-23T17:52:06Z

cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental/Tx/Internal/Fee.hs

+balanceTxOuts txBalance (UnsignedTx tx) =
+  let outs = toList $ tx ^. L.bodyTxL . L.outputsTxBodyL
+   in case List.uncons outs of
+        Nothing -> Left NoTxOuts


I think this could be a valid case, no? I imagine user could ask to balance a minting transaction with no outputs to just get one output generated: with a change.

I think you're right here. Let me push a change.

carbolymer · 2026-02-23T17:54:53Z

cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental/Tx/Internal/Fee.hs

+   in case List.uncons outs of
+        Nothing -> Left NoTxOuts
+        Just (h, rest) ->
+          let updatedout = h & L.valueTxOutL %~ (<> txBalance)


Why are you simply updating the first output with the balance difference? Shouldn't you add a change output at the end instead?

I suppose that's the assumption of the function that it sends surplus change to the first output - but it's not explained anywhere. I understand that this also saves on the fees. I am not sure that everyone would want that. We should provide an option to return the change to the change address.

carbolymer · 2026-02-23T17:56:25Z

cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental/Tx/Internal/Fee.hs

+ where
+  minFee = obtainCommonConstraints (useEra @era) $ L.calcMinFeeTx utxo pparams ledgerTx nExtraWitnesses
+  txBodyFee = ledgerTx ^. L.bodyTxL . L.feeTxBodyL
+  txBalanceValue = evaluateTransactionBalance pparams mempty mempty mempty utxo unSignTx


What about transactions registering and deregistering stake?

carbolymer · 2026-02-23T18:03:40Z

cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental/Tx/Internal/Fee.hs

+  -> Int
+  -- ^ Number of extra key hashes for native scripts
+  -> Either RecursiveFeeCalculationError (UnsignedTx (LedgerEra era))
+calcMinFeeRecursive unSignTx@(UnsignedTx ledgerTx) utxo pparams nExtraWitnesses


haddocks missing

carbolymer

I (w/ help of Claude) have found a counterexample for the idempotence test. See my latest commit REMOVEME: counterexample.

I think Copilot is right here: https://github.com/IntersectMBO/cardano-api/pull/1106/files#r2841432882

carbolymer · 2026-02-23T18:43:06Z

cardano-api/test/cardano-api-test/Test/Cardano/Api/Experimental.hs

+prop_calcMinFeeRecursive_fee_fixpoint = H.property $ do
+  (unsignedTx, utxo) <- H.forAll $ genFundedSimpleTx Exp.ConwayEra
+  case Exp.calcMinFeeRecursive unsignedTx utxo exampleProtocolParams 0 of
+    Left _ -> H.success


Not really, but a comment with clarification would be nice.

palas

The limit to recursion is very nice. I have some suggestions, and I think I found a bug with help of Claude. Also I am still investigating one edge case that I think may also be an issue, but I am finding it hard to prove empirically

palas · 2026-03-04T18:31:47Z

cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental/Tx/Internal/Fee.hs

+    | multiAssetIsNegative =
+        -- Case 1
+        Left $ NonAdaAssetsUnbalanced (getMultiAssets (useEra @era) txBalanceValue)


Does this need to be iterated on? If I understand correctly it could just be checked once before iterating, right?

Good catch it does not.

palas · 2026-03-04T18:34:37Z

cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental/Tx/Internal/Fee.hs

+    multiAssetIsNegative =
+      obtainCommonConstraints (useEra @era) $
+        not (L.pointwise (>=) txBalanceValue (L.inject txBalanceCoin))


I think it would be good to explain why this is the same as checking that multi assets (and only multi-assets) are negative, it is not obvious at all

It would be more self-documenting to compare only multi-assets to zero

Changed 👍

palas · 2026-03-04T20:35:58Z

cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental/Tx/Internal/Fee.hs

+            | lastOut ^. L.addrTxOutL == changeAddr ->
+                -- Update existing change output in place
+                let updatedOut = lastOut & L.valueTxOutL %~ (<> txBalance)
+                    changeCoin = L.coin (updatedOut ^. L.valueTxOutL)
+                 in if changeCoin < 0
+                      then Left $ NotEnoughAda changeCoin
+                      else Right $ rest Seq.:|> updatedOut


Suggested change

| lastOut ^. L.addrTxOutL == changeAddr ->

-- Update existing change output in place

let updatedOut = lastOut & L.valueTxOutL %~ (<> txBalance)

changeCoin = L.coin (updatedOut ^. L.valueTxOutL)

in if changeCoin < 0

then Left $ NotEnoughAda changeCoin

else Right $ rest Seq.:|> updatedOut

| lastOut ^. L.addrTxOutL == changeAddr ->

let currentValue = lastOut ^. L.valueTxOutL

newValue = currentValue <> txBalance

changeCoin = L.coin newValue

in if changeCoin < 0

then Left $ NotEnoughAda changeCoin

else Right $ rest Seq.:|> (lastOut & L.valueTxOutL .~ newValue)

Apparently setting a negative value into the TxOut (LedgerEra era) crashes, so it needs to be checked before setting it. This was something Claude discovered when investigating a different issue.
It produces this:

│ Illegal Value in TxOut: MaryValue (Coin (-21)) (MultiAsset (fromList []))

See the also Claude generated test here: 842edd7

Check the computed value for negativity before writing it into the TxOut. Previously the lens setter (%~) would trigger the ledger's TxOut invariant check and throw an exception before the changeCoin < 0 guard could run. Now we compute the new value on a plain MaryValue first, check it, and only write it with (.~) if non-negative. Also add HasCallStack to balanceTxOuts for better error diagnostics.

Copilot · 2026-03-06T16:33:30Z

@carbolymer I've opened a new pull request, #1119, to work on those changes. Once the pull request is ready, I'll request review from you.

carbolymer · 2026-03-06T16:43:03Z

cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental/Tx/Internal/Fee.hs

+    let outs = tx ^. L.bodyTxL . L.outputsTxBodyL
+     in case outs of
+          rest Seq.:|> lastOut
+            | lastOut ^. L.addrTxOutL == changeAddr ->


What if I create outputs: ["addr1", "addr2", "addr3"], and ask to send change to addr1? I think this could be improved to look up the change address here from all addresses in the outputs and modify it.

Unless this is expected to have multiple outputs pointing to the same address. If that is the case, users may be surprised that the last output gets modified with change value.

We're crystal-ball gazing a bit here. It depends on what we think the user wants to do. A user might create a specific output to addr1 and still want the transaction balance in a separate change output at addr1. My gut says: if a user is calling an automatic balancing function, knowing it creates a change output, and they explicitly construct an output to the same address, they likely want that output to have a specific value, with an additional change output generated separately.

We're crystal-ball gazing a bit here. It depends on what we think the user wants to do.

Yes a bit. My point was to just bring this possible use case to your attention.

My gut says: if a user is calling an automatic balancing function, knowing it creates a change output, and they explicitly construct an output to the same address, they likely want that output to have a specific value, with an additional change output generated separately.

Fine by me. 👍🏻 Just wanted to be sure that this is by design.

carbolymer · 2026-03-06T16:46:58Z

cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental/Tx/Internal/Fee.hs

+  -- transaction. These are counted as refunds on the consumed side.
+  -> Int
+  -- ^ Number of extra key hashes for native scripts
+  -> Either FeeCalculationError (UnsignedTx (LedgerEra era))


I would make FeeCalculationError constructors carry HasCallStack at this point. It would make pinpointing of an error easier. For example NotEnoughAda is returned in two cases:

when modifying the output

when adding new output.

So it's not super obvious where did error come from, until you analyse further.

Good catch but I'll modify the names to make it more obvious.

carbolymer · 2026-03-06T19:34:25Z

cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental/Tx/Internal/Fee.hs

+    -> Map (Ledger.Credential Ledger.DRepRole) L.Coin
+    -> Int
+    -> Either FeeCalculationError (UnsignedTx (LedgerEra era))
+  go 0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = Left FeeCalculationDidNotConverge


Is this actually an error? I think the result of the calculation can still be useful if the fee is somewhat reasonable.

@copilot figure out a definition of a "reasonable fee" which could be implemented here.

I guess this is a bit hand-wavy, but not too unreasonable #1120

Copilot · 2026-03-06T19:34:35Z

@carbolymer I've opened a new pull request, #1120, to work on those changes. Once the pull request is ready, I'll request review from you.

cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental/Tx/Internal/Fee.hs

carbolymer · 2026-03-06T21:49:36Z

cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental/Tx/Internal/Fee.hs

+        let updatedTx = UnsignedTx (ledgerTx & L.bodyTxL . L.outputsTxBodyL .~ balancedOuts)
+        go (n - 1) updatedTx utxo' pparams' poolids' stakeDelegDeposits' drepDelegDeposits' nExtraWitnesses'


Suggested change

let updatedTx = UnsignedTx (ledgerTx & L.bodyTxL . L.outputsTxBodyL .~ balancedOuts)

go (n - 1) updatedTx utxo' pparams' poolids' stakeDelegDeposits' drepDelegDeposits' nExtraWitnesses'

go (n - 1) $ UnsignedTx (ledgerTx & L.bodyTxL . L.outputsTxBodyL .~ balancedOuts)

carbolymer · 2026-03-06T21:50:55Z

cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental/Tx/Internal/Fee.hs

+        let newTx = UnsignedTx (ledgerTx & L.bodyTxL . L.feeTxBodyL .~ minFee)
+         in go (n - 1) newTx utxo' pparams' poolids' stakeDelegDeposits' drepDelegDeposits' nExtraWitnesses'


Suggested change

let newTx = UnsignedTx (ledgerTx & L.bodyTxL . L.feeTxBodyL .~ minFee)

in go (n - 1) newTx utxo' pparams' poolids' stakeDelegDeposits' drepDelegDeposits' nExtraWitnesses'

go (n - 1) $ UnsignedTx (ledgerTx & L.bodyTxL . L.feeTxBodyL .~ minFee)

carbolymer · 2026-03-06T22:01:04Z

cardano-api/test/cardano-api-test/Test/Cardano/Api/Experimental.hs

      (first show . Api.deserialiseFromRawBytesHex . Text.encodeUtf8)
+
+-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+-- Property tests for calcMinFeeRecursive


This file is too long at this point. This change should be moved to a separate module.

I'll follow up in a separate PR: #1121

carbolymer · 2026-03-06T22:02:50Z

cardano-api/test/cardano-api-test/Test/Cardano/Api/Experimental.hs

+        Exp.obtainCommonConstraints era $
+          Exp.TxOut $
+            Exp.obtainCommonConstraints era $


are those doubled constraints necessary? same in line 834

…constraints - Remove getMultiAssets helper and inline the MaryValue extraction, since EraCommonConstraints guarantees Value ~ MaryValue for all eras including Dijkstra - Remove unnecessary parameters from go's recursive loop — utxo, pparams, poolids, stakeDelegDeposits, drepDelegDeposits, and nExtraWitnesses are never modified and are already in scope from the enclosing function - Remove redundant obtainCommonConstraints calls in test generators where constraints are already in scope from the outer call

github-advanced-security bot found potential problems Feb 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental/Tx/Internal/Fee.hs Fixed Show fixed Hide fixed

cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental/Tx/Internal/Fee.hs Fixed Show fixed Hide fixed

Jimbo4350 force-pushed the jordan/introduce-calculate-min-fee-recursive branch 3 times, most recently from 7fd4c6e to 7f0d7a8 Compare February 12, 2026 15:28

Jimbo4350 force-pushed the jordan/introduce-calculate-min-fee-recursive branch from f42c341 to 93aa7a8 Compare February 20, 2026 18:12

Jimbo4350 marked this pull request as ready for review February 20, 2026 18:12

Jimbo4350 requested review from CarlosLopezDeLara, carbolymer, dcoutts, disassembler, erikd, kevinhammond, newhoggy and palas as code owners February 20, 2026 18:12

Jimbo4350 force-pushed the jordan/introduce-calculate-min-fee-recursive branch 5 times, most recently from ab0d8fa to 8fabff7 Compare February 23, 2026 14:45

carbolymer requested a review from Copilot February 23, 2026 15:11

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of carbolymer February 23, 2026 15:11 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Feb 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

carbolymer reviewed Feb 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental/Tx/Internal/Fee.hs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

carbolymer reviewed Feb 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

carbolymer requested changes Feb 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

Test to expose the Illegal Value in TxOut issue

842edd7

palas reviewed Mar 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

Jimbo4350 force-pushed the jordan/introduce-calculate-min-fee-recursive branch from 862bee6 to 8fe5e26 Compare March 5, 2026 18:19

Jimbo4350 added 3 commits March 5, 2026 14:27

Hoist multi-asset balance check out of calcMinFeeRecursive loop

25b425b

Assert well-funded test result is fully balanced

5ab0b5e

Add well-funded multi-asset property test for calcMinFeeRecursive

c53efcd

Jimbo4350 force-pushed the jordan/introduce-calculate-min-fee-recursive branch from 8fe5e26 to c53efcd Compare March 5, 2026 18:53

Copilot AI mentioned this pull request Mar 6, 2026

Make maxIterations injectable to test FeeCalculationDidNotConverge #1119

Draft

carbolymer reviewed Mar 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

Copilot AI mentioned this pull request Mar 6, 2026

calcMinFeeRecursive: return result at iteration limit when fee is reasonable #1120

Draft

carbolymer reviewed Mar 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental/Tx/Internal/Fee.hs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

carbolymer reviewed Mar 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

cardano-api/src/Cardano/Api/Experimental/Tx/Internal/Fee.hs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

carbolymer reviewed Mar 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

Jimbo4350 mentioned this pull request Mar 9, 2026

Move calcMinFeeRecursive tests to a separate module #1121

Closed

carbolymer approved these changes Mar 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

Jimbo4350 force-pushed the jordan/introduce-calculate-min-fee-recursive branch from a994f03 to 1b5f63a Compare March 9, 2026 15:27

Jimbo4350 enabled auto-merge March 9, 2026 15:27

Jimbo4350 added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 9, 2026

Merged via the queue into master with commit 9c85210 Mar 9, 2026
32 checks passed

Jimbo4350 deleted the jordan/introduce-calculate-min-fee-recursive branch March 9, 2026 16:20

	Left _ -> H.success
	Left err -> H.annotateShow err >> H.failure

		-- We have reached the minimum fee but there isn't a guarantee that
		-- the inputs/outputs are balanced

		let updatedTx = UnsignedTx (ledgerTx & L.bodyTxL . L.outputsTxBodyL .~ balancedOuts)
		go (n - 1) updatedTx utxo' pparams' poolids' stakeDelegDeposits' drepDelegDeposits' nExtraWitnesses'

	let updatedTx = UnsignedTx (ledgerTx & L.bodyTxL . L.outputsTxBodyL .~ balancedOuts)
	go (n - 1) updatedTx utxo' pparams' poolids' stakeDelegDeposits' drepDelegDeposits' nExtraWitnesses'
	go (n - 1) $ UnsignedTx (ledgerTx & L.bodyTxL . L.outputsTxBodyL .~ balancedOuts)

		let newTx = UnsignedTx (ledgerTx & L.bodyTxL . L.feeTxBodyL .~ minFee)
		in go (n - 1) newTx utxo' pparams' poolids' stakeDelegDeposits' drepDelegDeposits' nExtraWitnesses'

Conversation

Jimbo4350 commented Feb 12, 2026

Changelog

Context

How to trust this PR

Checklist

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

palas Feb 23, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

palas Feb 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

carbolymer Feb 23, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

palas Feb 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

carbolymer Feb 23, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Jimbo4350 Feb 27, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

carbolymer Feb 23, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

carbolymer Feb 23, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

carbolymer left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

palas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

palas Feb 23, 2026 •

edited

Loading

palas Feb 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading

carbolymer Feb 23, 2026 •

edited

Loading

palas Feb 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading

carbolymer Feb 23, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Jimbo4350 Feb 27, 2026 •

edited

Loading

carbolymer Feb 23, 2026 •

edited

Loading

carbolymer Feb 23, 2026 •

edited

Loading

carbolymer left a comment •

edited

Loading

carbolymer Mar 6, 2026 •

edited

Loading

carbolymer Mar 6, 2026 •

edited

Loading

carbolymer Mar 6, 2026 •

edited

Loading