feat(gas-keys): charge gas on failed deposit for gas key txs by darioush · Pull Request #15034 · near/nearcore

darioush · 2026-02-09T18:06:33Z

This is 3 out of 3 PRs for charging gas keys for failed transactions. See near/NEPs#611 for details. For reviewer's reference, all changes together: #15031

When a gas key transaction fails because the account can't cover the deposit, gas is still charged from the gas key balance. This prevents SPICE spam where an attacker drains their account between submission and execution to get free transactions.
Adds TxVerdict::DepositFailed variant: the verifier returns this when gas key balance is sufficient but the account can't cover the deposit
Adds NotEnoughBalanceForDeposit error variant
test_gas_key_tx_deposit_insufficient_charges_gas (apply-level), test_gas_key_tx_deposit_failed_for_{account_balance, storage_stake} (verifier-level)
Will fix protocol schema and openapi.json after review.

codecov · 2026-02-09T18:15:06Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 88.26291% with 25 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 68.82%. Comparing base (9a5ad27) to head (8e66605).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
core/primitives/src/errors.rs	0.00%	14 Missing ⚠️
runtime/runtime/src/verifier.rs	95.55%	5 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
chain/chain/src/runtime/mod.rs	0.00%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
runtime/runtime/src/lib.rs	96.00%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                       Coverage Diff                       @@
##           darioush/gaskeys-failedtx-2   #15034      +/-   ##
===============================================================
+ Coverage                        68.55%   68.82%   +0.27%     
===============================================================
  Files                              920      920              
  Lines                           201632   201832     +200     
  Branches                        201632   201832     +200     
===============================================================
+ Hits                            138227   138910     +683     
+ Misses                           57431    56954     -477     
+ Partials                          5974     5968       -6

Flag	Coverage Δ
pytests-nightly	`1.30% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
unittests	`68.43% <88.26%> (+<0.01%)`	⬆️
unittests-nightly	`68.41% <88.26%> (?)`

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR extends gas-key transaction handling so that when execution fails due to insufficient account balance for the deposit portion, gas is still charged against the gas key (mitigating free-tx spam via balance-draining between submission and execution).

Changes:

Introduces TxVerdict::DepositFailed to represent “deposit/account-level failure but still charge gas key”.
Adds InvalidTxError::NotEnoughBalanceForDeposit with DepositCostFailureReason to classify deposit failure reasons.
Updates runtime processing and tests to ensure gas-burn + gas-key nonce/balance updates occur on deposit failure.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 7 out of 7 changed files in this pull request and generated 5 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
`test-loop-tests/src/tests/gas_keys.rs`	Adds a TODO for a future test-loop/integration test covering `DepositFailed`.
`runtime/runtime/src/verifier.rs`	Returns `TxVerdict::DepositFailed` for gas-key txs that fail deposit checks, while still producing a `VerificationResult` for gas-only application. Adds unit test for the new verdict.
`runtime/runtime/src/tests/apply.rs`	Adds an apply-level test asserting gas is burnt + gas key balance/nonce update when deposit is insufficient.
`runtime/runtime/src/lib.rs`	Applies gas-only state changes and records an execution outcome (with gas burnt) when `DepositFailed` is returned.
`core/primitives/src/transaction.rs`	Adds `ExecutionOutcomeWithId::failed_with_gas_burnt` helper to construct failure outcomes with explicit gas/tokens burnt.
`core/primitives/src/errors.rs`	Adds `DepositCostFailureReason` and `InvalidTxError::NotEnoughBalanceForDeposit` plus display formatting.
`chain/chain/src/runtime/mod.rs`	Handles `TxVerdict::DepositFailed` in validation paths (treating it as an error for admission/selection).

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

Copilot · 2026-02-09T18:20:08Z

+    /// Gas key transaction failed because the account could not cover the deposit cost.
+    /// Gas is still charged from the gas key in this case.
+    NotEnoughBalanceForDeposit {
+        signer_id: AccountId,
+        balance: Balance,


InvalidTxError::NotEnoughBalanceForDeposit’s cost field is used with different semantics depending on reason (total deposit cost vs “required more for storage”). That makes the error payload ambiguous for API consumers; consider splitting into distinct fields (e.g. deposit_cost and storage_shortfall) or renaming cost/documenting it precisely per reason.

Suggested change

/// Gas key transaction failed because the account could not cover the deposit cost.

/// Gas is still charged from the gas key in this case.

NotEnoughBalanceForDeposit {

signer_id: AccountId,

balance: Balance,

/// Gas key transaction failed because the account could not cover the deposit cost.

///

/// `cost` is used in conjunction with `reason` and its exact meaning depends on

/// the value of `reason`. In particular, depending on the failure mode it may

/// represent either:

/// * the total deposit amount required by the transaction, or

/// * the additional amount required to cover storage (a shortfall over `balance`).

///

/// Gas is still charged from the gas key in this case.

NotEnoughBalanceForDeposit {

signer_id: AccountId,

balance: Balance,

/// Deposit-related cost associated with this failure. The precise semantics

/// of this field are determined by `reason`: for some reasons it encodes

/// the total deposit cost of the transaction, while for others it encodes

/// only the extra amount required to cover storage (the shortfall).

This seems somewhat minor to me, leave it up to reviewer.

Copilot · 2026-02-09T18:20:09Z

    env.shutdown_and_drain_remaining_events(Duration::seconds(5));
 }
+
+// TODO(gas-keys): Add test-loop test for DepositFailed (deposit-insufficient gas key tx).


Leaving this as a TODO means the new DepositFailed behavior isn’t covered by test-loop/integration tests. Please either add the test here (mirroring the unit/apply tests) or link this TODO to a tracking issue so it doesn’t get lost.

This test loop is not super trivial to write because it either requires chunk producer to skip some checks and include failed transactions or needs spice for execution delay.

# Gas Keys ([NEP-611](near/NEPs#611)) Gas keys are a new type of access key that carries a pre-funded NEAR balance and multiple independent nonce sequences. When a transaction is signed with a gas key, gas costs are deducted from the gas key's balance rather than the signer's account balance (deposits like NEAR transfers still come from the account). ## Why do we need gas keys? - Enabling SPICE without a DoS vector. The SPICE project (Separation of Execution from Consensus) decouples transaction execution from block production: transactions are included in blocks first, and executed asynchronously later. This means chunk producers can no longer verify account balances at inclusion time. An attacker could drain an account's balance in one transaction, then flood the chain with many transactions signed by that account. All would be accepted (since execution hasn't caught up), consuming block space for free when they inevitably fail. Gas keys close this gap by requiring gas to be pre-committed in the key itself, so chunk producers can verify gas availability without access to the latest state. - Parallel transaction submission. Today, programmatic users who submit many transactions in parallel must manage multiple access keys (each with its own nonce sequence). A gas key supports up to 1,024 independent nonce slots via a single key, removing that complexity. # Context - NEP (if exists): near/NEPs#611 - Implementation: - near#14868 - near#14869 - near#14883 - near#14891 - near#14892 - near#14911 - near#14924 - near#14925 - near#14930 - near#14933 - near#14969 - near#14985 - near#15033 - near#15034 - near#15067 - near#15068 - near#15100 - near#15101 - near#15186 # Testing and QA - unit tests - test-loop: https://github.com/near/nearcore/blob/master/test-loop-tests/src/tests/gas_keys.rs - forknet (automated): near#15207 - forknet (manual testing, planned) # Checklist - [x] Link to nightly nayduck run: https://nayduck.nearone.org/#/run/4756 - [x] Update CHANGELOG.md to include this protocol feature in the `Unreleased` section.

darioush requested a review from Copilot February 9, 2026 18:14

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of darioush February 9, 2026 18:14 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Feb 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

darioush force-pushed the darioush/gaskeys-failedtx-3 branch from 5f1f71d to bbcf978 Compare February 9, 2026 18:41

darioush requested a review from pugachAG February 9, 2026 18:50

darioush marked this pull request as ready for review February 9, 2026 18:50

darioush requested a review from a team as a code owner February 9, 2026 18:50

pugachAG approved these changes Feb 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

darioush force-pushed the darioush/gaskeys-failedtx-3 branch from bbcf978 to 8e66605 Compare February 10, 2026 20:33

Base automatically changed from darioush/gaskeys-failedtx-2 to master February 10, 2026 21:27

feat(gas-keys): charge gas on failed deposit for gas key txs

33e2b3c

darioush force-pushed the darioush/gaskeys-failedtx-3 branch from 8e66605 to 33e2b3c Compare February 10, 2026 22:29

darioush enabled auto-merge February 10, 2026 22:30

darioush added 2 commits February 10, 2026 14:36

update openapi

2769b47

update protocol_schema.toml

ad16b7f

darioush requested a review from frol as a code owner February 10, 2026 22:36

darioush added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 10, 2026

github-merge-queue Bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks Feb 10, 2026

darioush added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 10, 2026

Merged via the queue into master with commit 25b9eb6 Feb 10, 2026
27 checks passed

darioush deleted the darioush/gaskeys-failedtx-3 branch February 10, 2026 23:22

darioush mentioned this pull request Feb 25, 2026

feat(gas-keys): stabilize gas keys at protocol version 85 #15183

Merged

2 tasks

r-near mentioned this pull request Mar 3, 2026

NEP-611: Pending Transaction Queue & Gas Keys — DevEx library changes near/devex#43

Open

31 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

feat(gas-keys): charge gas on failed deposit for gas key txs#15034

feat(gas-keys): charge gas on failed deposit for gas key txs#15034
darioush merged 3 commits into
masterfrom
darioush/gaskeys-failedtx-3

darioush commented Feb 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Feb 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 9, 2026

Uh oh!

darioush Feb 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 9, 2026

Uh oh!

darioush Feb 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

darioush commented Feb 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Feb 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

darioush Feb 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

darioush Feb 9, 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!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

darioush commented Feb 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Feb 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

darioush Feb 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading