If the block references two ouputs in some other transaction the code failed
to verify it because of key collision. C# code implements it properly by using
full CoinReference type as a key, so let's do it in a similar fashion.
Claim transactions have different logic in C# node, so we need to
implement it too. It's not the most elegant way to fix it, but let's make it
work first and then refactor if and where needed. Fixes verification of Claim
transactions.
BoltDB doesn't have internal batching mechanism, thus we have a substitute for
it, but this substitute is absolutely identical to MemoryBatch, so it's better
to unify them and import ac5d2f94d3 fix into the
MemoryBatch.
Commit 578ac414d4 was wrong in that it saved
only a part of the block, so depending on how you use blockchain, you may
still see that the block was not really processed properly. To really fix it
this commit introduces intermediate storage layer in form of memStore, which
actually is a MemoryStore that supports full Store API (thus easily fitting
into the existing code) and one extension that allows it to flush its data to
some other Store.
It also changes AddBlock() semantics in that it only accepts now successive
blocks, but when it does it guarantees that they're properly added into the
Blockchain and can be referred to in any way. Pending block queing is now
moved into the server (see 8c0c055ac657813fe3ed10257bce199e9527d5ed).
So the only thing done with persist() now is just a move from memStore to
Store which probably should've always been the case (notice also that
previously headers and some other metadata was written into the Store
bypassing caching/batching mechanism thus leading to some inefficiency).
This one will replace blockCache in Blockchain itself as it can and should be
external from it. The idea is that we only feed successive blocks into the
Blockchain and it only stores valid proper Blockchain and nothing else.
This changes the Blockchain to also return unpersisted (theoretically, verified
in the AddBlock!) blocks and transactions, making Add/Get interfaces
symmetrical. It allows to turn Persist into internal method again and makes it
possible to enable transaction check in GetBlock(), thus fixing #366.
It must copy both the value and the key because they can be reused for other
purposes between Put() and PutBatch(). This actually happens with values in
headers processing, leading to wrong data being written into the DB.
Extend the batch test to check for that.
earlier we had an issue with failing test in #353 and other one #305.
Reworked these test to have in-memory database. This led to multiple
changes: made some functions like Hash and Persist public(otherwise
it's not possible to control state of the blockchain); removed
unit_tests storage package which was used mainly for leveldb in unit
tests.
I see these tests not really good since they look like e2e tests and
as for me should be run in separate step against dockerized env or
in case we want to check rpc handler we might want to rework it in order
to have interface for proper unit tests.
As for me this patchset at least makes as safe with not removing totally
previous tests and at the same time CircleCI will be happy now.
It's mostly used for Serializable and in other cases where one needs to
estimate binary-encoded size of the stucture. This also simplifies future
removal of the Size() from Serializable.
The logic here is that we'll have all binary encoding/decoding done via our io
package, which simplifies error handling. This functionality doesn't belong to
util, so it's moved.
This also expands BufBinWriter with Reset() method to fit the needs of core
package.
add close function to storage interface
add common defer function call which will close db connection
remove context as soon as it's not needed anymore
updated unit tests
This one fixes#390 and some connected problems. After this patchset the node reconnects to some other nodes if anything goes wrong and it better senses when something goes wrong. It also fixes some block handling problems based on the testnet connection experience.
In the unlikely event of overlapping hash block written to the DB we might end
up with wrong hash list. That happened to me for some reason when synching
with the testnet leading to the following keys with respective values:
150000 -> 2000 hashes
152000 -> 2000 hashes
153999 -> 2000 hashes
Reading it hashes number 153999 and 154000 got the same values and the chain
couldn't sync correctly.
