transactionFromNotExistingAccount does not reflect YellowPaper #503
Comments
|
True. Would be nice to know is this has ever occurred (I suspect it may, we had brief no-cost-blocks a while back). If it hasn't occurred, I think it's a pita to change/hardfork to make it different in the future. If it hasn't occurred, we should change the test and retroactively consider it as always having been in place. Just an opinion... |
Why: We should be using `Transaction.execute_with_validation` in our blockchain block instead of skipping validations with `Transaction.execute`. We were skipping these previously because it was causing some blockchain common tests to fail but I think we want to check our transactions are valid to get all the tests passing eventually. This PR: Uses `Transaction.execute_with_validation` in `apps/blockchain/lib/blockchain/block.ex` and makes the required changes to our existing tests. Due to ethereum/tests#503 we needed to introduce a `check_account_validity` to handle cases where the sender account doesn't exist. This removes the invalid case of `missing_account` as if the account is missing but there is a cost for the transaction, the transaction will still be invalid but for a different reason (such as `over_gas_limit`) Co-authored-by: Matthew Sumner <matt.m.sumner@gmail.com>
|
@holiman am I understanding your comment correctly? Are you saying that:
If those are your points, I definitely agree. I think that makes sense. |
|
Looks like we agreed that if majority of the clients pass this test as it is right now, we should change the YP. |
Yes those were my points :) |
|
👍 changing the YP makes sense to me. Does anybody know how we go about doing that (open an issue and point back here)? And should I close this issue? |
|
I have no idea -- have never touched the YP .. :/ We need a new @pirapira |
|
Would opening an issue in https://github.com/ethereum/yellowpaper be a good step? I'm guessing that's the first step in making that change? |
|
yes. I remember there was issue about whos yellow paper is more yellow. Gavin Wood had some authorship issues with us. I guess ethereum/yellowpaper is the latest version. it should also be autocompiled by some script into a webpage. |
|
any updates? |
|
@winsvega I never opened an issue on https://github.com/ethereum/yellowpaper for this. I think I misread your answer back in October of last year, and I thought we weren't sure what would be the best place to fix this. Looking back at it now, I see the "yes" there. I haven't dealt with ethereum in a little while. @ayrat555 would opening an issue for the yellow paper be something you'd be willing to do? If not, I can try to open one based on what I have described in this issue. |
|
I am quite busy with tests right now. if there is smth we should do about this issue please tell, otherwise could just close. |
I was looking through the transactionFromNotExistingAccount test, and it seems to me like it does not accurately reflect the Yellow Paper.
This test seems to execute a transaction with a valid signature (and thus we can get a sender address), but for which the sender's account does not exist in the blockchain db.
The transaction passes several of the requirements for a valid transaction specified under Section 6.2 of the Yellow Paper (currently eq. 66) by having a
gas priceof0and avalueof0, but it does not seem to satisfy the requirement thatS(T) != Null.Since the equation numbers are liable to change, I include a copy of the equations here:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: