Do not add them directly to chain, it will be done by the block queue
manager. Close https://github.com/nspcc-dev/neo-go/issues/2923. However,
this commit is not valid without
https://github.com/roman-khimov/dbft/pull/4.
It's the neo-go's duty to initialize consensus after subsequent block
addition; the dBFT itself must wait for the neo-go to complete the block
addition and notify the dBFT, so that it can initialize at 0-th view to
collect the next block.
It has a special `requestF` and a special initialization function, but other
than that it's an absolutely regular WSClient. Can be used to call, can be
used to subscribe. Fixes#2909.
According to docs, `Server` uses provided error channel only to write
encountered error to it. In this case, there is no need to accept rw
channel to create `Server` instance. Strengthening the type to
write-only will allow the caller to ensure control of reading errors
from the provided channel.
The change is backward compatible since any `chan` is `chan<-`.
Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <ctulhurider@gmail.com>
`Actor.MakeUnsignedUncheckedRun` method imposes restriction to
`CalculateNetworkFee` method's implementations: `Hash` or `Size` methods
must not be called on the pointer to the given transaction.
Add docs to adjust described requirement.
Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <ctulhurider@gmail.com>
We have both from and to here, so technically we can either drop the neg/neg
trick from the processTokenTransfer() or drop one field from the structure
(the other side is a part of the key). Drop the field since this can make the
DB a bit more compact. Change Amount to be a pointer along the way since
that's the "native" thing for big.Int, we've used non-pointer field
specifically to avoid Neg/Neg problems, but it looks like this is not
necessary.
This structure is only used by the RPC server and I doubt anyone uses it via
the *Blockchain.
In some cases n.Add() can reuse the []Word buffer and n.Sub() reallocate it
away. If that happens, we're out of luck with 0.99.0+ versions (since
3945e81857). I'm not sure why it does that, bit
width doesn't change in most of the cases and even if it does, we still have
enough of it in cap() to hold the old Abs() value (when we have a negative
value we in fact decreate its Abs() first and increase it back
afterwards). Still, that's what we have.
So when we have processTokenTransfer() doing Neg/Neg in-place its value is not
affected, but the original []Word bits that are reused by amount value are
(they're shared initially, Amount: *amount).
name old time/op new time/op delta
ToPreallocatedBytes-8 65.8ns ± 2% 45.6ns ± 2% -30.73% (p=0.008 n=5+5)
name old alloc/op new alloc/op delta
ToPreallocatedBytes-8 0.00B 0.00B ~ (all equal)
name old allocs/op new allocs/op delta
ToPreallocatedBytes-8 0.00 0.00 ~ (all equal)
d5a9af5860 is incompatible with the NeoFS
mainnet sidechain, so we add the old logic to the pre-Aspidochelone
behaviour. Changing flags at newMethodAndPrice() is a bit less convenient
unfortunately because this will affect interop validity checks, so let's have
this kludge here.
6b4dd5703e made it to be a uint16 which was
somewhat important for RPC, but now it's irrelevant and the fact that it was a
string in some cases may lead to errors like these:
failed to unmarshal config YAML: yaml: unmarshal errors:
line 48: cannot unmarshal !!str `20011` into uint16
line 52: cannot unmarshal !!str `40001` into uint16
So for maximum backwards compatibility we better have string here and
eventually it'll be deleted anyway.
It directly affects node security and the default here MUST BE the safe choice
which is to do the verification. Otherwise it's just dangerous, absent any
VerifyBlocks configuration we'll get an insecure node. This option is not
supposed to be frequently used and it doesn't affect the ability to process
blocks, so breaking compatibility (in a safe manner) should be OK here.
And include some node-specific configurations there with backwards
compatibility. Note that in the future we'll remove Ledger's
fields from the ProtocolConfiguration and it'll be possible to access them in
Blockchain directly (not via .Ledger).
The other option tried was using two configuration types separately, but that
incurs more changes to the codebase, single structure that behaves almost like
the old one is better for backwards compatibility.
Fixes#2676.
