actually identify output by their transaction AND output index... #1697
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Hmm I will investigate the generators for the state machine tests. |
piotr-iohk
approved these changes
May 28, 2020
rvl
approved these changes
May 28, 2020
The transaction id doesn't uniquely identify an output! So, if a transaction had several output, they'd all be conflated under the same key... 🤦
piotr-iohk
force-pushed
the
KtorZ/1670/input-resolution-fix
branch
from
3b780e5 to
ee35bdb
Compare
|
bors r+ |
|
bors r- |
iohk-bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 28, 2020
1697: actually identify output by their transaction AND output index... r=KtorZ a=KtorZ # Issue Number <!-- Put here a reference to the issue this PR relates to and which requirements it tackles --> #1670 # Overview <!-- Detail in a few bullet points the work accomplished in this PR --> The transaction id doesn't uniquely identify an output! So, if a transaction had several output, they'd all be conflated under the same key... 🤦 I wonder why the state machine didn't catch that though.. because the database model was doing it correctly by using the full `TxIn` as a key. # Comments <!-- Additional comments or screenshots to attach if any --> <!-- Don't forget to: ✓ Self-review your changes to make sure nothing unexpected slipped through ✓ Assign yourself to the PR ✓ Assign one or several reviewer(s) ✓ Once created, link this PR to its corresponding ticket ✓ Assign the PR to a corresponding milestone ✓ Acknowledge any changes required to the Wiki --> Co-authored-by: KtorZ <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Piotr Stachyra <[email protected]>
Canceled |
KtorZ
commented
May 28, 2020
| @@ -847,6 +847,14 @@ scenario_TRANS_REG_1670 fixture = it title $ \ctx -> do | |||
| Empty | |||
|
|
|||
| -- ASSERTIONS | |||
| let transaction = head $ getFromResponse id rTxs | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@piotr-iohk There's no guarantee that the first tx is the one we are interested in here 🤔
It'll be safer to simply run this check for every transaction present in the wallet, it should hold anyway.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added verification for all outgoing transactions -> f8bcfe2. Incoming txs not necessarily have input amounts.
|
bors r+ |
Build succeeded |
KtorZ
added
the
RESOLVING ISSUE
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.
Issue Number
#1670
Overview
The transaction id doesn't uniquely identify an output! So, if a transaction had several output, they'd all be conflated under the same key... 🤦
I wonder why the state machine didn't catch that though.. because the database model was doing it correctly by using the full
TxInas a key.Comments