feat(client): add global max transaction fee configuration by tech0priyanshu · Pull Request #2332 · hiero-ledger/hiero-sdk-python

tech0priyanshu · 2026-06-03T20:21:56Z

Description:
Adds support for configuring a global maximum transaction fee at the client level.

Related issue(s):

Fixes #2000

Notes for reviewer:

Checklist

Documented (Code comments, README, etc.)
Tested (unit, integration, etc.)

coderabbitai · 2026-06-03T20:28:13Z

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 190c792b-bf8e-4549-9c44-2d9c78874f68

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 612e7a1 and 4b94571.

📒 Files selected for processing (7)

src/hiero_sdk_python/client/client.py
src/hiero_sdk_python/transaction/transaction.py
tests/integration/account_update_transaction_e2e_test.py
tests/unit/client_test.py
tests/unit/fee_estimate_query_test.py
tests/unit/file_append_transaction_test.py
tests/unit/transaction_freeze_and_bytes_test.py

Walkthrough

Adds a client-level default_max_transaction_fee and fluent setter; adds a matching Transaction.set_max_transaction_fee() and updates freeze_with() to resolve max-fee precedence: transaction explicit → client default → class default. Tests updated/added to validate inputs, chaining, negative values, and freeze-time precedence.

Changes

Client and Transaction Max Fee Configuration

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Client-level default max transaction fee `src/hiero_sdk_python/client/client.py`, `tests/unit/client_test.py`, `tests/unit/fee_estimate_query_test.py`, `tests/unit/file_append_transaction_test.py`	`Client` introduces `default_max_transaction_fee` (initialized to `None`) and `set_max_transaction_fee(...)` with boolean rejection, type acceptance `int
Transaction-level override and fee resolution `src/hiero_sdk_python/transaction/transaction.py`, `tests/unit/transaction_freeze_and_bytes_test.py`, `tests/integration/account_update_transaction_e2e_test.py`	`Transaction` adds `set_max_transaction_fee(...)` mirroring Client validation/coercion and updates `freeze_with()` to choose max fee by precedence: explicit transaction fee, then `client.default_max_transaction_fee`, then the class default `_default_transaction_fee`. Imports updated to include `Decimal`. Unit and integration tests exercise setter chaining, type coercion, negative-value handling, and freeze-time precedence across scenarios.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
  participant Developer
  participant Client
  participant Transaction
  participant TransactionBody
  Developer->>Client: set_max_transaction_fee value
  Client->>Client: validate input and convert to Hbar
  Developer->>Transaction: set_max_transaction_fee value
  Transaction->>Transaction: validate input and set transaction_fee
  Developer->>Transaction: freeze_with client
  alt transaction_fee is set
    Transaction->>TransactionBody: use explicit transaction fee
  else transaction_fee is not set
    Transaction->>Client: read default_max_transaction_fee
    alt client default exists
      Transaction->>TransactionBody: use client default fee
    else no client default
      Transaction->>TransactionBody: use class default fee
    end
  end

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly summarizes the main change: adding a global max transaction fee configuration at the client level, which aligns with the primary objective.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description is relevant to the changeset, mentioning the addition of global max transaction fee configuration at the client level and referencing issue `#2000`.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The PR implements all requirements from issue `#2000`: added `default_max_transaction_fee` field to Client, implemented `set_max_transaction_fee()` methods in both Client and Transaction, updated fee resolution precedence in `freeze_with()`, and maintained backward compatibility.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	All changes are within scope: client-level fee configuration, transaction-level fee setter, fee resolution logic updates, and corresponding unit/integration test coverage with necessary mock updates.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	Docstring coverage is 92.59% which is sufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

📋 Issue Planner

Built with CodeRabbit's Coding Plans for faster development and fewer bugs.

View plan used: #2000

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

Create PR with unit tests

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 6

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 5f52c8b9-6025-4004-85ec-a0350465b3be

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between f2015e9 and 612e7a1.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)

src/hiero_sdk_python/client/client.py
src/hiero_sdk_python/transaction/transaction.py
tests/unit/client_test.py
tests/unit/transaction_freeze_and_bytes_test.py

coderabbitai · 2026-06-03T20:28:17Z

+def test_fee_resolution_transaction_precedence(mock_client):
+    """Transaction fee explicitly set should take precedence over client default."""
+    tx = TransferTransaction()
+    tx.set_max_transaction_fee(Hbar(10))
+
+    # client has different default
+    mock_client.set_max_transaction_fee(Hbar(5))
+
+    tx.freeze_with(mock_client)
+
+    assert tx.transaction_fee == Hbar(10)
+
+
+def test_fee_resolution_client_default_used_when_transaction_missing(mock_client):
+    """When transaction fee is not set, client.default_max_transaction_fee should be used."""
+    tx = TransferTransaction()
+    # leave tx.transaction_fee as None
+
+    mock_client.set_max_transaction_fee(Hbar(7))
+
+    tx.freeze_with(mock_client)
+
+    assert tx.transaction_fee == Hbar(7)
+
+
+def test_fee_resolution_falls_back_to_transaction_default(mock_client):
+    """When neither transaction nor client provide a fee, fallback to transaction default Hbar(1)."""
+    tx = TransferTransaction()
+    tx.set_transaction_id(TransactionId.generate(AccountId.from_string("0.0.1234")))
+    # Ensure client default is None
+    mock_client.default_max_transaction_fee = None
+
+    tx.freeze_with(mock_client)
+
+    assert tx.transaction_fee == 100000000  # Default fee for TransferTransaction


🛠️ Refactor suggestion | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win

Add test coverage for fee resolution in single-node and multi-node paths.

The current tests (lines 728-762) only verify fee resolution when freeze_with(mock_client) uses the client's network nodes. Missing coverage: fee resolution when node_account_id or node_account_ids are explicitly set before freeze_with().

These additional test scenarios would catch the major issue flagged in transaction.py where the client's default_max_transaction_fee is bypassed in those code paths.

🧪 Proposed additional tests

def test_fee_resolution_with_explicit_node_account_id(mock_client): """Fee resolution should work when node_account_id is explicitly set.""" tx = TransferTransaction() tx.node_account_id = AccountId(0, 0, 3) mock_client.set_max_transaction_fee(Hbar(7)) tx.freeze_with(mock_client) # Should use client default, not transaction default assert tx.transaction_fee == Hbar(7) def test_fee_resolution_with_explicit_node_account_ids(mock_client): """Fee resolution should work when node_account_ids list is explicitly set.""" tx = TransferTransaction() tx.node_account_ids = [AccountId(0, 0, 3), AccountId(0, 0, 4)] mock_client.set_max_transaction_fee(Hbar(8)) tx.freeze_with(mock_client) # Should use client default, not transaction default assert tx.transaction_fee == Hbar(8)

As per coding guidelines: "PRIORITY 3 - Comprehensive Coverage: Cover happy paths AND unhappy paths/edge cases."

codecov · 2026-06-03T20:31:11Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2332   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.02%   95.03%           
=======================================
  Files         163      163           
  Lines       10473    10494   +21     
=======================================
+ Hits         9952     9973   +21     
  Misses        521      521

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

github-actions · 2026-06-03T20:36:32Z

Hi, this is WorkflowBot.
Your pull request cannot be merged as it is not passing all our workflow checks.
Please click on each check to review the logs and resolve issues so all checks pass.
To help you:

DCO signing guide
Merge conflicts guide
Rebase guide
Testing guide
Discord
Community Calls
Thank you for contributing!
From the Hiero Python SDK Team

manishdait · 2026-06-09T10:21:17Z

@tech0priyanshu is this ready for review

tech0priyanshu · 2026-06-09T10:24:37Z

need a bit time @tech0priyanshu

tech0priyanshu · 2026-06-09T11:43:49Z

pls review @manishdait @exploreriii

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 1

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 190c792b-bf8e-4549-9c44-2d9c78874f68

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 612e7a1 and 4b94571.

📒 Files selected for processing (7)

src/hiero_sdk_python/client/client.py
src/hiero_sdk_python/transaction/transaction.py
tests/integration/account_update_transaction_e2e_test.py
tests/unit/client_test.py
tests/unit/fee_estimate_query_test.py
tests/unit/file_append_transaction_test.py
tests/unit/transaction_freeze_and_bytes_test.py

coderabbitai

Caution

Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's internal server error or limits when posting large numbers of comments. If you are seeing this consistently it is likely a permissions issue. Please check "Moderation" -> "Code review limits" under your organization settings.

Actionable comments posted: 1

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 190c792b-bf8e-4549-9c44-2d9c78874f68

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 612e7a1 and 4b94571.

📒 Files selected for processing (7)

src/hiero_sdk_python/client/client.py
src/hiero_sdk_python/transaction/transaction.py
tests/integration/account_update_transaction_e2e_test.py
tests/unit/client_test.py
tests/unit/fee_estimate_query_test.py
tests/unit/file_append_transaction_test.py
tests/unit/transaction_freeze_and_bytes_test.py

🛑 Comments failed to post (1)

src/hiero_sdk_python/transaction/transaction.py (1)
489-493: ⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win

Explicit zero fee is overwritten by default fee.

Line 489 and Line 517 use truthy fallback (self._transaction_fee or self._default_transaction_fee). If fee is explicitly set to 0, serialization silently falls back to the default fee, so zero-fee configuration is ignored.
💡 Suggested fix
-        fee = self._transaction_fee or self._default_transaction_fee
+        fee = self._transaction_fee if self._transaction_fee is not None else self._default_transaction_fee
         if hasattr(fee, "to_tinybars"):
             transaction_body.transactionFee = int(fee.to_tinybars())
         else:
             transaction_body.transactionFee = int(fee)
...
-        fee = self._transaction_fee or self._default_transaction_fee
+        fee = self._transaction_fee if self._transaction_fee is not None else self._default_transaction_fee
         if hasattr(fee, "to_tinybars"):
             schedulable_body.transactionFee = int(fee.to_tinybars())
         else:
             schedulable_body.transactionFee = int(fee)
Also applies to: 517-521

aceppaluni · 2026-06-09T16:51:14Z

@tech0priyanshu Is this ready for review again?

tech0priyanshu · 2026-06-09T16:52:06Z

Yeah 👍

aceppaluni · 2026-06-09T17:55:12Z

+        # 1. Explicit transaction fee (self.transaction_fee)
+        # 2. Client default_max_transaction_fee
+        # 3. Transaction class default (_default_transaction_fee)
+        if self.transaction_fee is None:


Is it intentional that resolving the client default fee permanently mutates transaction_fee during freeze?

I believe a change may be required here as per issue.

exploreriii

Hi @tech0priyanshu
Great work but we need to check for some inconsistencies as right now some parts can be handling 1 hbar and others 1 tinybar then should be looking pretty good. Really check up the typing

exploreriii · 2026-06-14T09:04:10Z

            transaction_body, signed_transaction.bodyBytes, signed_transaction.sigMap
        )

+    def set_max_transaction_fee(self, max_transaction_fee):


Some of the logic here is quite complex, and duplicated elsewhere, which has also caused some typing curiosities

why not extract the fee calculation and place it e.g. in the hbar file?

self.default_max_transaction_fee = _coerce_fee(max_transaction_fee)

Then create

def _coerce_fee(value: int | float | Decimal | Hbar) -> Hbar:

and call that from the multiple points

exploreriii · 2026-06-14T09:05:13Z


+    def set_max_transaction_fee(


ideally can just call that same thing from the hbar class

tech0priyanshu · 2026-06-14T20:50:41Z

@exploreriii @aceppaluni Sorry I was busy last. But yeah, i try to update asap

github-actions · 2026-06-17T11:33:02Z

Hello, this is the OfficeHourBot.

This is a reminder that the Hiero Python SDK Office Hours will begin in approximately 2 hours and 28 minutes (14:00 UTC).

This session provides an opportunity to ask questions regarding this Pull Request.

Details:

Time: 14:00 UTC
Join Link: Zoom Meeting

Disclaimer: This is an automated reminder. Please verify the schedule here for any changes.

From,
The Python SDK Team

exploreriii · 2026-06-17T12:35:10Z

Hi @tech0priyanshu let us know please when this is ready to review again, thanks

github-actions · 2026-06-19T12:22:04Z

Hi @tech0priyanshu,

This pull request has had no commit activity for 10 days. Are you still working on it?
To keep the PR active, you can:

Push a new commit.
Comment /working on the linked issue (not this PR).

If you're no longer working on this, please comment /unassign on the linked issue to release it for others. Otherwise, this PR may be closed due to inactivity.

Reach out on discord or join our office hours if you need assistance.

From the Python SDK Team

Signed-off-by: tech0priyanshu <priyanshuyadv101106@gmail.com>

tech0priyanshu requested review from a team as code owners June 3, 2026 20:21

tech0priyanshu requested review from Akshat8510 and exploreriii June 3, 2026 20:21

github-actions Bot added lang: python Uses Python programming language skill: advanced requires knowledge of multiple areas in the codebase without defined steps to implement or examples labels Jun 3, 2026

coderabbitai Bot reviewed Jun 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

github-actions Bot added open to community review PR is open for community review and feedback queue:junior-committer PR awaiting initial quality review labels Jun 3, 2026

tech0priyanshu marked this pull request as draft June 4, 2026 06:12

exploreriii removed queue:junior-committer PR awaiting initial quality review open to community review PR is open for community review and feedback labels Jun 6, 2026

tech0priyanshu force-pushed the feat/add-client-set-max-transaction-fee branch from 612e7a1 to c7d3316 Compare June 8, 2026 16:36

tech0priyanshu force-pushed the feat/add-client-set-max-transaction-fee branch from 749aad6 to 70637d1 Compare June 9, 2026 11:15

tech0priyanshu marked this pull request as ready for review June 9, 2026 11:43

coderabbitai Bot reviewed Jun 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

github-actions Bot added open to community review PR is open for community review and feedback queue:junior-committer PR awaiting initial quality review labels Jun 9, 2026

tech0priyanshu removed queue:junior-committer PR awaiting initial quality review open to community review PR is open for community review and feedback labels Jun 9, 2026

github-actions Bot added open to community review PR is open for community review and feedback queue:junior-committer PR awaiting initial quality review labels Jun 9, 2026

aceppaluni requested changes Jun 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

exploreriii requested changes Jun 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

exploreriii marked this pull request as draft June 14, 2026 09:19

tech0priyanshu force-pushed the feat/add-client-set-max-transaction-fee branch from 4b94571 to 2a22053 Compare June 16, 2026 07:34

tech0priyanshu force-pushed the feat/add-client-set-max-transaction-fee branch from 2a22053 to ed12851 Compare June 18, 2026 10:43

aceppaluni added the status: update branch developer needs to click update branch label Jun 21, 2026

tech0priyanshu added 4 commits June 22, 2026 13:03

feat: set_max_transaction to client

737e509

Signed-off-by: tech0priyanshu <priyanshuyadv101106@gmail.com>

removed print

6bcb065

Signed-off-by: tech0priyanshu <priyanshuyadv101106@gmail.com>

fixed magicMock

7917712

Signed-off-by: tech0priyanshu <priyanshuyadv101106@gmail.com>

fixed precheckerror

f3ceca8

Signed-off-by: tech0priyanshu <priyanshuyadv101106@gmail.com>

tech0priyanshu force-pushed the feat/add-client-set-max-transaction-fee branch from ed12851 to f3ceca8 Compare June 22, 2026 12:50

fixes

81b0ce8

Signed-off-by: tech0priyanshu <priyanshuyadv101106@gmail.com>

Conversation

tech0priyanshu commented Jun 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Jun 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Walkthrough

Changes

Sequence Diagram(s)

Estimated code review effort

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot Jun 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Jun 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

manishdait commented Jun 9, 2026

Uh oh!

tech0priyanshu commented Jun 9, 2026

Uh oh!

tech0priyanshu commented Jun 9, 2026

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aceppaluni commented Jun 9, 2026

Uh oh!

tech0priyanshu commented Jun 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

aceppaluni Jun 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

exploreriii left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

exploreriii Jun 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

exploreriii Jun 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

tech0priyanshu commented Jun 14, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 17, 2026

Uh oh!

exploreriii commented Jun 17, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 19, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

tech0priyanshu commented Jun 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

coderabbitai Bot commented Jun 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Jun 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading