Problem: with StateRootInHeader setting on only one header of height N+1
can be added to the chain of height N, because we need local stateroot
to verify headers (which is calculated for the last stored block N).
Thus, adding chunk of headers starting from the current chain's heigh
is impossible and (*Blockchain).AddHeaders doesn't have much sense.
Solution: verify header.PrevStateRoot only for header N+1. Rest of the
headers should be added without PrevStateRoot verification.
For `nft-nd-nns` example only `namestate.go` file was compiled which is
certainly not what we want.
Signed-off-by: Evgeniy Stratonikov <evgeniy@nspcc.ru>
If a method is known at compile time we can still check
if it is present in the list of methods of at least one contract.
Signed-off-by: Evgeniy Stratonikov <evgeniy@nspcc.ru>
On many occassions we can determine at compile-time if contract config lacks
some properties it needs. This includes all native contract invocations
through stdlib, as both hashes and methods are known at compile-time
there.
Signed-off-by: Evgeniy Stratonikov <evgeniy@nspcc.ru>
(*NEO).GetCandidates along with getCandidatesCall use candidates sorted
by serialized ECPoint bytes.
(*NEO).computeCommitteeMembers use candidates sorted by votes, and then
by deserialized ECPoint, i.e. using default ECPoint comparator.
Problem:
```
executor_test.go:151:
Error Trace: executor_test.go:151
executor_test.go:147
nep11_test.go:232
Error: Expect "{"name":"HASHY 3HNCEX8D9J0p\u002BLxmr3uPhOhSW90="}" to match "{"name":"HASHY 3HNCEX8D9J0p+Lxmr3uPhOhSW90="}"
Test: TestNEP11_OwnerOf_BalanceOf_Transfer
```
Solution:
Same as preesnted in #2006.
Base58 does not preserve one-to-one byte correspondence with the
original data, so different combinations of the same number of bytes
might have different encoded string length. We use GAS transfer to mint
HASHY token, where the token hash is Base58Encode(Ripemd160(data + txHash)).
The problem is that `invokescript` RPC call is used to define transfer tx
sysfee, thus, txHash during testinvoke differs from the actual one, that's
why resulting token ID may have different length during testinvoke and
real invoke. As far as we use token ID as a key to store contract
values, the storage price may also differ. The result is failing
TestNEP11_OwnerOf_BalanceOf_Transfer test due to `gas limit exceeded`
error:
```
logger.go:130: 2021-06-10T21:09:08.984+0300 WARN contract invocation failed {"tx": "45a0220b19725eaa0a4d01fa7a6cdaac8498592e8f3b43bdde27aae7d9ecf635", "block": 5, "error": "error encountered at instruction 36 (SYSCALL): error during call from native: error encountered at instruction 22 (SYSCALL): failed to invoke syscall 1736177434: gas limit exceeded"}
executor_test.go:219:
Error Trace: executor_test.go:219
nep11_test.go:132
nep11_test.go:235
Error: Not equal:
expected: 0x2
actual : 0x4
Test: TestNEP11_OwnerOf_BalanceOf_Transfer
```
Fixed by using base64 instead of base58 (base64 preserves the resulting
encoded string length for the same input length).
Update neofs-api-go to `v1.27.1`.
Add `WithURIAddress` client option.
Stop using `V2` abstractions outside
of the `api-go` library.
Signed-off-by: Pavel Karpy <carpawell@nspcc.ru>
This commit fixes the following Go vs C# state diff:
block 74613: value mismatch for key EwAAAHN0cmVhbXMvDg==: eyJpZCI6MTQsInN0YXJ0IjoxNjIyNTAwMjAwMDAwLCJzdG9wIjoxNjIyNTAyMDAwMDAwLCJkZXBvc2l0IjoxMDAwMDAwMDAsInJlbWFpbmluZyI6MTAwMDAwMDAwLCJzZW5kZXIiOiJmeEY4RDl2ZFU3K0gwcDV3NTlyWllMNytNSlE9IiwicmVjaXBpZW50IjoiSVV6c3pveFV0S1NGVnlZRGczSmdTQTFlbTFNPSJ9 vs eyJpZCI6MTQsInN0YXJ0IjoxNjIyNTAwMjAwMDAwLCJzdG9wIjoxNjIyNTAyMDAwMDAwLCJkZXBvc2l0IjoxMDAwMDAwMDAsInJlbWFpbmluZyI6MTAwMDAwMDAwLCJzZW5kZXIiOiJmeEY4RDl2ZFU3XHUwMDJCSDBwNXc1OXJaWUw3XHUwMDJCTUpRPSIsInJlY2lwaWVudCI6IklVenN6b3hVdEtTRlZ5WURnM0pnU0ExZW0xTT0ifQ==
I.e.:
```
{"id":14,"start":1622500200000,"stop":1622502000000,"deposit":100000000,"remaining":100000000,"sender":"fxF8D9vdU7+H0p5w59rZYL7+MJQ=","recipient":"IUzszoxUtKSFVyYDg3JgSA1em1M="}
```
vs
```
{"id":14,"start":1622500200000,"stop":1622502000000,"deposit":100000000,"remaining":100000000,"sender":"fxF8D9vdU7\u002BH0p5w59rZYL7\u002BMJQ=","recipient":"IUzszoxUtKSFVyYDg3JgSA1em1M="}
```
