Bug Description
On Testnet:
>>> get_account_history special-account 3
61978003 2022-11-21T20:41:00 1.11.151387577 Create limit order to sell 10 SPECIALA for 0.0001 SPECIAL (Fee: 0 TEST)
61977906 2022-11-21T20:36:00 1.11.151387576 Create limit order to sell 10 SPECIALA for 0.0001 SPECIAL (Fee: 0 TEST)
61977809 2022-11-21T20:31:00 1.11.151387575 Create limit order to sell 10 SPECIALA for 0.0001 SPECIAL (Fee: 0 TEST)
Note that there is no result showing with these orders. A normal limit order looks like this:
61978048 2022-11-21T20:43:24 1.11.151387578 Create limit order to sell 1 TEST for 1000 CONTEST.BTC (Fee: 0.00100 TEST) result: 1.7.9085458
Actually the results of those orders are [0,{}] aka void_result():
>>> get_object 1.11.151387577
[{
"id": "1.11.151387577",
"op": [
1,{
"fee": {
"amount": 0,
"asset_id": "1.3.0"
},
"seller": "1.2.3564",
"amount_to_sell": {
"amount": 100000,
"asset_id": "1.3.329"
},
"min_to_receive": {
"amount": 1,
"asset_id": "1.3.330"
},
"expiration": "2106-02-07T06:28:15",
"fill_or_kill": false,
"extensions": []
}
],
"result": [
0,{}
],
"block_num": 61978003,
"trx_in_block": 0,
"op_in_trx": 0,
"virtual_op": 0,
"is_virtual": true,
"block_time": "2022-11-21T20:41:00"
}
]
According to the log messages, there was an error when placing these orders, so no order was successfully placed:
create_buyback_order ] Skipping buyback processing selling 1.3.329 for {"id":"1.3.330","symbol":"SPECIAL","precision":4,"issuer":"1.2.3563","options":{"max_supply":1000000000,"market_fee_percent":0,"max_market_fee":0,"issuer_permissions":79,"flags":0,"core_exchange_rate":{"base":{"amount":100000,"asset_id":"1.3.0"},"quote":{"amount":10000,"asset_id":"1.3.330"}},"whitelist_authorities":[],"blacklist_authorities":[],"whitelist_markets":[],"blacklist_markets":[],"description":"{\"main\":\"\",\"market\":\"\"}","extensions":{}},"dynamic_asset_data_id":"2.3.330","buyback_account":"1.2.3564","creation_block_num":10660593,"creation_time":"2017-09-01T07:44:54"} for buyback account {"id":"1.2.3564","membership_expiration_date":"1970-01-01T00:00:00","registrar":"1.2.17","referrer":"1.2.17","lifetime_referrer":"1.2.17","network_fee_percentage":2000,"lifetime_referrer_fee_percentage":3000,"referrer_rewards_percentage":3,"name":"special-account","owner":{"weight_threshold":1,"account_auths":[["1.2.3",1]],"key_auths":[],"address_auths":[]},"active":{"weight_threshold":1,"account_auths":[["1.2.3",1]],"key_auths":[],"address_auths":[]},"options":{"memo_key":"TEST7H976gDkY4PkUTpLTDNjYL8u7n9fP9X4qgi4rbArYRS7srxUqE","voting_account":"1.2.5","num_witness":0,"num_committee":0,"votes":[],"extensions":[]},"num_committee_voted":0,"statistics":"2.6.3564","whitelisting_accounts":[],"blacklisting_accounts":[],"whitelisted_accounts":[],"blacklisted_accounts":[],"owner_special_authority":[0,{}],"active_special_authority":[0,{}],"top_n_control_flags":0,"allowed_assets":["1.3.329","1.3.330"],"creation_block_num":10660894,"creation_time":"2017-09-01T08:03:45"} at block 61978003; exception was 10 assert_exception: Assert Exception is_authorized_asset( d, *fee_paying_account, *fee_asset ): Account 1.2.3564 'special-account' attempted to pay fee by using asset 1.3.0 'TEST', which is unauthorized due to whitelist / blacklist
Like failed proposals, I think we should not list these orders in account history (see cryptonomex/graphene#481 and 7e0e58f). Note that existing operation history IDs (1.11.x) should remain unchanged (see cryptonomex/graphene#483 and 7cae350).
Strictly speaking, fixing this issue does not change consensus. However, in order to preserve the existing operations history IDs, we need to fix this issue in a consensus upgrade.
Impacts
Describe which portion(s) of BitShares Core may be impacted by this bug. Please tick at least one box.
Host Environment
Please provide details about the host environment. Much of this information can be found running: witness_node --version.
- BitShares Version:
test-6.1.2
CORE TEAM TASK LIST
Bug Description
On Testnet:
Note that there is no
resultshowing with these orders. A normal limit order looks like this:Actually the results of those orders are
[0,{}]akavoid_result():According to the log messages, there was an error when placing these orders, so no order was successfully placed:
Like failed proposals, I think we should not list these orders in account history (see cryptonomex/graphene#481 and 7e0e58f). Note that existing operation history IDs (
1.11.x) should remain unchanged (see cryptonomex/graphene#483 and 7cae350).Strictly speaking, fixing this issue does not change consensus. However, in order to preserve the existing operations history IDs, we need to fix this issue in a consensus upgrade.
Impacts
Describe which portion(s) of BitShares Core may be impacted by this bug. Please tick at least one box.
Host Environment
Please provide details about the host environment. Much of this information can be found running:
witness_node --version.test-6.1.2CORE TEAM TASK LIST