Make NEP-11 code use getnep11balances the same way NEP-17 code uses
getnep17balances. This command was introduced well before getnep11balances
appeared, so it required always specifying contract explicitly. Now this
constraint can be relaxed somewhat in most cases.
1. In the single token mode compare known hashes instead of names, names can
be misleading.
2. Hardcode NEO/GAS, they are special (if not overrided by the wallet data).
We have this data available since 0.99.1 while all public networks require at
least 0.99.2 for compatibility and NeoFS setups use 0.99.2+ too. This data can
simplify account handling considerably making additional requests unneccessary
in many cases.
In the same way we do for NEP-17 tokens. This code predates "getnep11balances"
call, so this wasn't possible back then, but now we can improve the situation
(allow specifying names/symbols instead of hashes only).
NEP-6 has a notion of locked acccounts and SignTx must respect this user's
choice. For some reason this setting was inappropriately used by our RPC
client tests (probably a different kind of lock was meant).
* each account must have an appropriate signer, if there is no signer for
this account in the tx it's an error
* we can only safely append to Scripts when account belongs to the next
signer (we don't have appropriate verification scripts for other signers)
* when contract has one parameter, the signature shouldn't be appended to
other data
I think these rules allow to handle more cases and do that safer. We have more
complex scenarios though, like non-signature parameters or mixed-parameter
invocation scripts, but that's out of scope for now.
calculatenetworkfee MUST calculate complete proper network fee, if we have
some extensions enabled and some attributes should be paid for that they're a
part of the equation too.
Adding an array multiple times leads to the fast update via `IncRC`.
This hides the allocation that is there on the first addition. In this
commit add another benchmark which measures Add/Remove together, to
ensure that `switch` in `refCounter.Add` is entered. Benchmark results
are meaningful, because `Add`/`Remove` have almost identical implementation.
Signed-off-by: Evgeniy Stratonikov <evgeniy@nspcc.ru>
We're dealing with a transaction here and it can't be decoded successfully
unless it has an appropriate number of witness scripts (matching the number of
signers) with appropriate hashes (matching signers). So this iterations make
no sense at all, we know exactly where to look for the
verification/invocation scripts.
Blockchain's notificationDispatcher sends events to channels and these
channels must be read from. Unfortunately, regular service shutdown procedure
does unsubscription first (outside of the read loop) and only then drains the
channel. While it waits for unsubscription request to be accepted
notificationDispatcher can try pushing more data into the same channel which
will lead to a deadlock. Reading in the same method solves this, any number of
events can be pushed until unsub channel accepts the data.
Unsubscribe and drain first, then return from the Shutdown method. It's
important wrt to subsequent chain shutdown process (normally it's closed right
after the network server).
