More nil checking in InsertReceiptChain

[karlb]

Fixes #1920

This just applies the change suggested in the issue. It seems reasonable and passed the tests, but I don't understand which situation would cause nil return values, yet.

[akeyless-target-app]

Coverage from tests in ./e2e_test/... for ./consensus/istanbul/... at commit 9546b30

coverage: 49.3% of statements across all listed packages

coverage:  63.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul
coverage:  40.1% of statements in consensus/istanbul/announce
coverage:  54.8% of statements in consensus/istanbul/backend
coverage:   0.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul/backend/backendtest
coverage:  24.3% of statements in consensus/istanbul/backend/internal/replica
coverage:  63.3% of statements in consensus/istanbul/core
coverage:  45.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul/db
coverage:   0.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul/proxy
coverage:  64.4% of statements in consensus/istanbul/uptime
coverage:  51.8% of statements in consensus/istanbul/validator
coverage:  79.2% of statements in consensus/istanbul/validator/random

CommentID: 43f4952ca7

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 59.62% and project coverage change: -0.60 ⚠️

Comparison is base (e831c00) 54.82% compared to head (e343bf3) 54.23%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2036      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   54.82%   54.23%   -0.60%     
==========================================
  Files         688      692       +4     
  Lines       92542   115463   +22921     
==========================================
+ Hits        50737    62621   +11884     
- Misses      37993    49012   +11019     
- Partials     3812     3830      +18     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
cmd/geth/main.go	20.47% <ø> (+0.47%)	⬆️
cmd/utils/flags.go	2.58% <0.00%> (-0.20%)	⬇️
consensus/istanbul/protocol.go	0.00% <ø> (ø)
contracts/gasprice_minimum/gasprice_minimum.go	47.50% <0.00%> (-12.97%)	⬇️
contracts/testutil/utils.go	25.00% <ø> (-5.00%)	⬇️
core/chain_makers.go	69.93% <0.00%> (+2.43%)	⬆️
core/sys_context.go	77.35% <ø> (-1.22%)	⬇️
core/vm/operations_acl.go	2.94% <ø> (-1.51%)	⬇️
eth/api_backend.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
eth/downloader/queue.go	80.45% <ø> (-0.47%)	⬇️
... and 36 more

... and 610 files with indirect coverage changes

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[palango]

@karlb The upstream geth issues doesn't have a clear solution, did you check what solved it for them?

[karlb]

@karlb The upstream geth issues doesn't have a clear solution, did you check what solved it for them?

I don't think they know what solved the issue, the issue is just closed as stale. That part of the code has been changed significantly, so there is no trivial way to cherry-pick a change in either direction.

[palango]

I don't think they know what solved the issue, the issue is just closed as stale. That part of the code has been changed significantly, so there is no trivial way to cherry-pick a change in either direction.

So the idea is to add the check and see if it happens again? Maybe we should add some log message then...

[karlb]

So the idea is to add the check and see if it happens again?

Unless anyone has a good idea on how to reproduce or explain this, yes. Anything is better than a segfault. Well, anything but a corrupted state, but since we exit the function at a pretty sane point, I think we are safe here.

Maybe we should add some log message then...

Yes, good idea.

[github-actions]

Coverage from tests in ./e2e_test/... for ./consensus/istanbul/... at commit 244cad0

coverage: 50.7% of statements across all listed packages

coverage:  63.4% of statements in consensus/istanbul
coverage:  40.1% of statements in consensus/istanbul/announce
coverage:  54.7% of statements in consensus/istanbul/backend
coverage:   0.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul/backend/backendtest
coverage:  24.3% of statements in consensus/istanbul/backend/internal/replica
coverage:  68.5% of statements in consensus/istanbul/core
coverage:  45.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul/db
coverage:   0.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul/proxy
coverage:  64.4% of statements in consensus/istanbul/uptime
coverage:  51.8% of statements in consensus/istanbul/validator
coverage:  79.2% of statements in consensus/istanbul/validator/random

[github-actions]