fix!: use best_transactions for get_txs

[tac0turtle]

Description

after talking to the reth team they proposed using best_transactions instead of pending.

Type of Change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• Documentation update
• Performance improvement
• Refactoring

Related Issues

Fixes #(issue)

Checklist

• I have performed a self-review of my code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published

Testing

Additional Notes

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @tac0turtle, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

I've implemented a crucial fix that refactors the transaction selection mechanism within the RPC layer. Previously, the system iterated through pending transactions; however, based on recommendations from the reth team, I've switched to using best_transactions. This change ensures that the system prioritizes transactions more effectively, likely leading to better performance and more accurate transaction handling within the pool. This is a targeted improvement to the core transaction processing logic.

Highlights

• Transaction Selection Logic: I've updated the get_txs function to use self.pool.best_transactions() instead of self.pool.pending_transactions(). This change was suggested by the reth team to improve how transactions are selected from the pool.
• Variable Renaming: I've refactored the variable name from pending_map to selected_txs to align with the new logic of selecting the "best" transactions.
• Code Comments Update: I've updated the inline comments to clearly indicate that the function now iterates over transactions sorted by priority, providing better clarity for future code readers.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments or fill out our survey to provide feedback.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

The pull request correctly switches from using pending_transactions to best_transactions to fetch transactions from the pool. This is a good improvement as it ensures transactions are prioritized. I've added a couple of suggestions to improve code clarity and performance within the new implementation.

[gemini-code-assist]

The current RLP encoding creates a new Vec with default capacity and then encodes into it, which may cause reallocations. You can make this more efficient by using encode_to_vec(), which pre-allocates the Vec with the exact required capacity before encoding. This avoids potential reallocations during the encoding process.

Suggested change

	let mut rlp_bytes = Vec::new();
	tx.encode(&mut rlp_bytes);
	let rlp_bytes = tx.encode_to_vec();

[Manav-Aggarwal]

Left two small comments, curious for your thoughts. LGTM otherwise