-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 671
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
mainnet/ft-burn? fails without clear reason #3460
Comments
Hey! Do you remember the value of tokens you tried to burn? If it was 0, then you'll get |
Thanks @jcnelson, it was 3,000,000,000 tokens, issue updated with the information. |
This might be a glitch in the explorer. On my node, I'm seeing this transaction getting successfully processed. |
Full transcript of the processing in my node:
|
Here is the transaction queried by the API, status is abort_by_response.
|
One of these days I will learn to read 🤦 The node output indicates that the transaction was processed, but it returned
So, the fact that this transaction failed is no longer in question. However, looking at the address in question, it doesn't appear that it would have had a balance of 3 xBTC at the time of the call? Take a look: https://explorer.stacks.co/address/SP3Y72B4DZ7VGDRKBR8YDX08SJGCMN6K5JKF2F13V?chain=mainnet |
Specifically, the transaction that gives this address 3 xBTC (https://explorer.stacks.co/txid/0x69178b707ae0c900d5311235d74431771c959a6781236b12ceba573c8e323a43?chain=mainnet) got mined after the failed call to |
I missed it as well, to be fair the u1 appears at the very end of a very long line, after the phrase "processed successfully" |
So, I don't think there's a bug here. The address SP3Y72B4DZ7VGDRKBR8YDX08SJGCMN6K5JKF2F13V did not have 3 xBTC at the time of the call to |
That will explain it, and it will be my preferred explanation, For now thanks for your efforts, I will post here my findings |
Thanks @jcnelson you are absolutely correct, (edit) still some mystery there, the handling code was supposed to wait until the transfer was successfully confirmed in an anchor block, and only then broadcast the burn. Both transactions ending up in the same block shouldn't be possible. I'll investigate farther. |
If it helps any, your |
Closing this issue as completed. |
This issue has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
We had ft-burn? failing with u1 error
As per the documentation
"If a non-positive amount is provided to burn, this function returns (err 1). Otherwise, on successfuly burn, it returns (ok true).
"But neither the amount (3,000,000, 000) was negative nor would the action result in the principal having negative number of tokens and a consecutive identical ft-burn? went through without any hiccups
It happened only once, so I am unclear whether it is reproducible or how.
Yet, I would expect, clarity's functions to be predictable, given the same preconditions, yield the same results.
Relevant excerpt of the function calling ft-burn? constants displayed as value
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: