fix: Implement correct balance updating logic #4692
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Co-authored-by: Austin Larson <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Oppenheimer <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Austin Larson <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Oppenheimer <[email protected]>
Member
Author
|
Relevant comment: ava-labs/subnet-evm#1745 (comment) |
JonathanOppenheimer
added
evm
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Why this should be merged
Previously
upgradeAccountwould naively assume that anyupgrade.BalanceChangewas positive, even though the underlying BalanceChange was aBig.Int, which can be negative. This meant that negative balance updates would be interpreted as positive updates, which is strange, and arguably incorrect behavior. This PR correctly implements the balance changing behavior, and adds checks to ensure account balances are not updated to non-sensical values. Closes #4719How this was tested
I added a new test file,
state_upgrade_test.go.This behavior was seemingly not tested prior.Need to be documented?
I don't think so - we are not exposing any additional API methods, we're just fixing an existing one.
Need to update RELEASES.md?
No