Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix nil Error in function reportBlock #370

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Dec 29, 2023

Conversation

gzliudan
Copy link
Collaborator

@gzliudan gzliudan commented Nov 22, 2023

Proposed changes

This PR fix a bug in function reportBlock as reported in post and issue #369:

Error: <nil>

The Error is always nil from EngineV2. This bug is caused by the function reportBlock:

func (bc *BlockChain) reportBlock(block *types.Block, receipts types.Receipts, err error) {
	bc.addBadBlock(block)

	// V2 specific logs
	config, _ := json.Marshal(bc.chainConfig)

	var roundNumber = types.Round(0)
	engine, ok := bc.Engine().(*XDPoS.XDPoS)
	if ok {
		roundNumber, err = engine.EngineV2.GetRoundNumber(block.Header())
	}

	var receiptString string
	for _, receipt := range receipts {
		receiptString += fmt.Sprintf("\t%v\n", receipt)
	}
	log.Error(fmt.Sprintf(`
########## BAD BLOCK #########
Chain config: %v

Number: %v
Hash: 0x%x
%v

Round: %v
Error: %v
##############################
`, string(config), block.Number(), block.Hash(), receiptString, roundNumber, err))
}

In above codes, the parameter err is reassigned to value nil by the line:

roundNumber, err = engine.EngineV2.GetRoundNumber(block.Header())

after switch to EngineV2.

Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce to XDC network?
Put an in the boxes that apply

  • [✅] Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • Documentation Update (if none of the other choices apply)
  • Regular KTLO or any of the maintaince work. e.g code style
  • CICD Improvement

Impacted Components

Which part of the codebase this PR will touch base on,

Put an in the boxes that apply

  • Consensus
  • Account
  • [✅] Network
  • Geth
  • Smart Contract
  • External components
  • Not sure (Please specify below)

Checklist

Put an in the boxes once you have confirmed below actions (or provide reasons on not doing so) that

  • [✅] This PR has sufficient test coverage (unit/integration test) OR I have provided reason in the PR description for not having test coverage
  • Provide an end-to-end test plan in the PR description on how to manually test it on the devnet/testnet.
  • Tested the backwards compatibility.
  • Tested with XDC nodes running this version co-exist with those running the previous version.
  • Relevant documentation has been updated as part of this PR
  • N/A

@gzliudan gzliudan force-pushed the fix-issue-369 branch 2 times, most recently from a39ab3c to 091b0c2 Compare November 30, 2023 02:49
@liam-lai liam-lai merged commit 3225467 into XinFinOrg:dev-upgrade Dec 29, 2023
1 check passed
@liam-lai liam-lai mentioned this pull request Feb 4, 2024
19 tasks
@gzliudan gzliudan deleted the fix-issue-369 branch February 27, 2024 11:42
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants