Batch Amendment #5060

dangell7 · 2024-07-10T15:45:43Z

High Level Overview of Change

Context of Change

Type of Change

Bug fix (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)
Refactor (non-breaking change that only restructures code)
Performance (increase or change in throughput and/or latency)
Tests (you added tests for code that already exists, or your new feature included in this PR)
Documentation update
Chore (no impact to binary, e.g. .gitignore, formatting, dropping support for older tooling)
Release

API Impact

Public API: New feature (new methods and/or new fields)
Public API: Breaking change (in general, breaking changes should only impact the next api_version)
libxrpl change (any change that may affect libxrpl or dependents of libxrpl)
Peer protocol change (must be backward compatible or bump the peer protocol version)

Test Plan

https://gist.github.com/dangell7/3afbe8c4597a58dc2b02be598f9b7d54

codecov · 2024-07-10T16:10:41Z

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 85.81236% with 62 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 78.0%. Comparing base (ccc0889) to head (accc8e0).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/applySteps.cpp	40.0%	15 Missing ⚠️
src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/Batch.cpp	88.4%	14 Missing ⚠️
src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/Transactor.cpp	85.9%	9 Missing ⚠️
src/xrpld/overlay/detail/PeerImp.cpp	0.0%	8 Missing ⚠️
src/xrpld/app/misc/NetworkOPs.cpp	68.4%	6 Missing ⚠️
src/libxrpl/protocol/STTx.cpp	92.5%	5 Missing ⚠️
src/xrpld/app/ledger/detail/OpenLedger.cpp	33.3%	2 Missing ⚠️
src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/apply.cpp	96.8%	2 Missing ⚠️
src/xrpld/ledger/detail/OpenView.cpp	50.0%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop   #5060    +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage     78.0%   78.0%            
========================================
  Files          789     792     +3     
  Lines        66954   67292   +338     
  Branches      8108    8139    +31     
========================================
+ Hits         52218   52503   +285     
- Misses       14736   14789    +53

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
include/xrpl/protocol/Batch.h	`100.0% <100.0%> (ø)`
include/xrpl/protocol/Feature.h	`100.0% <ø> (ø)`
include/xrpl/protocol/HashPrefix.h	`100.0% <ø> (ø)`
include/xrpl/protocol/STObject.h	`92.9% <ø> (ø)`
include/xrpl/protocol/STTx.h	`100.0% <ø> (ø)`
include/xrpl/protocol/TER.h	`100.0% <100.0%> (ø)`
include/xrpl/protocol/TxMeta.h	`91.7% <ø> (ø)`
include/xrpl/protocol/detail/transactions.macro	`100.0% <100.0%> (ø)`
src/libxrpl/protocol/InnerObjectFormats.cpp	`100.0% <100.0%> (ø)`
src/libxrpl/protocol/STObject.cpp	`87.9% <100.0%> (+0.5%)`	⬆️
... and 23 more

... and 6 files with indirect coverage changes

src/libxrpl/protocol/STTx.cpp

This is not finished. Needs to only revert the transactions submitted not the entire open ledger.

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/Batch.cpp

ximinez · 2024-07-31T16:36:25Z

Also, since it seems this PR is still under active development, could you convert it to a draft?

shawnxie999 · 2025-01-10T19:18:07Z

src/test/app/Batch_test.cpp

-
-        env(noop(bob), ter(tesSUCCESS));
+        auto const carol = Account("carol");
+        env.fund(XRP(220), alice, bob, carol);


would prefer not hardcoding the values since they are subjected to change, and it's hard for the reviewer to know the exact numbers. Should use following variables for account funding:

auto const acctReserve = env.current()->fees().accountReserve(0); auto const incReserve = env.current()->fees().increment; auto const fee = env.current()->fees().base; env.fund(acctReserve + ..., alice, bob, carol);

(feel free to leave these test-related comments for later, since they are less urgent)

shawnxie999 · 2025-01-10T19:20:32Z

src/test/app/Batch_test.cpp

-            batch::sig(bob),
-            ter(telINSUF_FEE_P));
+        // Using 1 XRP to create insufficient reserve result
+        auto const batchFee = XRP(1);


ditto. we should specify the batchFee relative to the fee variables, so it's easier to understand, something like

auto const acctReserve = env.current()->fees().accountReserve(0); auto const incReserve = env.current()->fees().increment; auto const fee = env.current()->fees().base; ... ... ... auto const batchFee = fee * 2; // Just making this up, should change the value accordingly

shawnxie999 · 2025-01-10T20:00:51Z

src/test/app/Batch_test.cpp

+        env(batch::batch(alice, seq, batchFee, tfOnlyOne),
+            batch::add(pay(alice, bob, XRP(999)), seq + 1),
+            batch::add(pay(alice, bob, XRP(1)), seq + 2),
+            batch::add(pay(alice, bob, XRP(1)), seq + 3),


nit: doesn't change the test behavior, prefer to change the amount of the unprocessed txn to be different from the previous txn

Suggested change

batch::add(pay(alice, bob, XRP(1)), seq + 3),

batch::add(pay(alice, bob, XRP(2)), seq + 3),

mvadari · 2025-01-10T20:03:40Z

src/test/app/Batch_test.cpp

+            // BEAST_EXPECT(jrr[jss::meta][sfParentBatchID.jsonName] ==
+            // batchId);


Why is this commented out?

mvadari · 2025-01-10T20:04:08Z

src/test/app/Batch_test.cpp

+        jtx::Account account;
+    };
+
+    Json::Value


Suggested change

Json::Value

std::optional<Json::Value>

mvadari · 2025-01-10T20:04:42Z

src/test/app/Batch_test.cpp

+        BEAST_EXPECT(transactions.size() == batchResults.size() + 1);
+
+        // Validate ttBatch is correct index
+        auto const txn = getTxByIndex(jrr, 0);


Is this assuming that Batch transactions are the only ones in the ledger?

mvadari · 2025-01-10T20:06:53Z

src/test/app/Batch_test.cpp

+            Json::Value jsonTx;
+            jsonTx[jss::binary] = false;
+            jsonTx[jss::transaction] = batchResult.txHash;
+            jsonTx[jss::id] = 1;
+            Json::Value const jrr =
+                env.rpc("json", "tx", to_string(jsonTx))[jss::result];


Suggested change

Json::Value jsonTx;

jsonTx[jss::binary] = false;

jsonTx[jss::transaction] = batchResult.txHash;

jsonTx[jss::id] = 1;

Json::Value const jrr =

env.rpc("json", "tx", to_string(jsonTx))[jss::result];

Json::Value const jrr =

env.rpc("tx", batchResult.txHash)[jss::result];

mvadari · 2025-01-10T20:07:29Z

src/test/app/Batch_test.cpp

+        std::uint32_t sequence,
+        std::optional<std::uint32_t> ticket = std::nullopt)
+    {
+        std::uint32_t const index = jv[jss::RawTransactions].size();


Why doesn't this use batch in jtx/batch.h?

mvadari · 2025-01-10T20:07:52Z

src/test/app/Batch_test.cpp

+    XRPAmount
+    calcBatchFee(
+        test::jtx::Env const& env,
+        uint32_t const& signers,


nit:

Suggested change

uint32_t const& signers,

uint32_t const& numSigners,

mvadari · 2025-01-10T20:08:55Z

src/test/jtx/batch.h

+batch(
+    jtx::Account const& account,
+    uint32_t seq,
+    STAmount const& fee,
+    std::uint32_t flags);
+
+/** Adds a new Batch Txn on a JTx. */
+class add


Thoughts on calling these outer and inner instead?

mvadari · 2025-01-10T20:11:09Z

src/test/app/Batch_test.cpp

+            env(batch::batch(alice, seq, batchFee, tfAllOrNothing),
+                txflags(tfDisallowXRP),


Can this not be simplified like this?

Suggested change

env(batch::batch(alice, seq, batchFee, tfAllOrNothing),

txflags(tfDisallowXRP),

env(batch::batch(alice, seq, batchFee, tfDisallowXRP),

mvadari · 2025-01-10T20:12:07Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/Batch.cpp

+    {
+        JLOG(ctx.j.trace())
+            << "BatchTrace[" << batchId << "]:" << "too many flags.";
+        return temMALFORMED;


This should probably also return temINVALID_FLAG

mvadari · 2025-01-10T20:27:37Z

src/libxrpl/protocol/STTx.cpp

+singleSignHelper(
+    STObject const& signer,
+    Slice const& data,
+    STTx::RequireFullyCanonicalSig requireCanonicalSig,


I think this param can be removed, since rules is a global variable now.

That looks like it might get complicated, though, so I'm fine if you don't want to touch that in this PR.

mvadari · 2025-01-10T20:30:24Z

src/libxrpl/protocol/STTx.cpp

-    // We don't allow both a non-empty sfSigningPubKey and an sfSigners.
-    // That would allow the transaction to be signed two ways.  So if both
-    // fields are present the signature is invalid.


This comment should stay.

mvadari · 2025-01-10T20:33:10Z

src/libxrpl/protocol/STTx.cpp

+multiSignHelper(
+    STArray const& signers,
+    AccountID const& txnAccountID,
+    bool const fullyCanonical,


IMO this should be aligned with singleSignHelper and either both should have the fullyCanonical bool or both should use the STTx::RequireFullyCanonicalSig value.

mvadari · 2025-01-10T20:35:35Z

src/libxrpl/protocol/STTx.cpp

+    // Make sure the MultiSigners are present.  Otherwise they are not
+    // attempting multi-signing and we just have a bad SigningPubKey.
+    if (!batchSigner.isFieldPresent(sfSigners))
+        return Unexpected("Empty SigningPubKey.");
+
+    // We don't allow both an sfSigners and an sfTxnSignature.  Both fields
+    // being present would indicate that the transaction is signed both ways.
+    if (batchSigner.isFieldPresent(sfTxnSignature))
+        return Unexpected("Cannot both single- and multi-sign.");
+
+    STArray const& signers{batchSigner.getFieldArray(sfSigners)};
+
+    // There are well known bounds that the number of signers must be within.
+    if (signers.size() < minMultiSigners ||
+        signers.size() > maxMultiSigners(&rules))
+        return Unexpected("Invalid Signers array size.");


Looks like a lot of these checks are identical between checkBatchMultiSign and checkMultiSign - can they be incorporated into the multiSignHelper function? Should also have the side benefit of making the diff smaller.

mvadari · 2025-01-10T20:42:01Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/ApplyContext.h

@@ -36,13 +36,35 @@ class ApplyContext
 {
 public:
    explicit ApplyContext(


Should these constructors also have assert checks?

mvadari · 2025-01-10T20:42:11Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/ApplyContext.h

+        std::optional<uint256 const> const& batchId,
+        STTx const& tx_,
+        TER preclaimResult_,
+        XRPAmount baseFee_,
        ApplyFlags flags,


One more underscore missed

mvadari · 2025-01-10T20:42:17Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/ApplyContext.h

+        STTx const& tx_,
+        TER preclaimResult_,
+        XRPAmount baseFee_,
+        ApplyFlags flags,


One more underscore missed

mvadari · 2025-01-10T21:10:34Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/Batch.cpp

+        if (stx.isFieldPresent(sfTxnSignature))
+        {
+            JLOG(ctx.j.trace())
+                << "BatchTrace[" << batchId
+                << "]:" << "inner txn cannot include TxnSignature."
+                << "index: " << i;
+            return temINVALID_BATCH;
+        }
+
+        if (!stx.getSigningPubKey().empty())
+        {
+            JLOG(ctx.j.trace())
+                << "BatchTrace[" << batchId
+                << "]:" << "inner txn must include empty SigningPubKey."
+                << "index: " << i;
+            return temINVALID_BATCH;
+        }
+
+        if (stx.isFieldPresent(sfSigners))
+        {
+            JLOG(ctx.j.trace()) << "BatchTrace[" << batchId
+                                << "]:" << "inner txn cannot include Signers."
+                                << "index: " << i;
+            return temINVALID_BATCH;
+        }


These can all be combined into one if

fixed: accc8e0

mvadari · 2025-01-10T21:12:59Z

src/test/app/Batch_test.cpp

+    }
+
+    Json::Value
+    addBatchTx(


Why isn't this function (and the below ones) part of the jtx helper file? Seems like there's some overlap there.

mvadari · 2025-01-10T21:15:42Z

src/test/app/Batch_test.cpp

+
+        // temINVALID_BATCH: Batch: TransactionType missing in array entry.
+        {
+            auto const txBlob =


This test is hard to audit. Can it be written to use the existing JSON structures, but instead of using batch::add, the JSON is constructed by hand?

mvadari · 2025-01-10T21:27:08Z

src/test/app/Batch_test.cpp

+        env(batch::batch(alice, seq, batchFee, tfAllOrNothing),
+            batch::add(pay(alice, bob, XRP(10)), seq + 1),
+            batch::add(tx, seq + 2),
+            ter(tesSUCCESS));


Shouldn't this test fail with temINVALID_FEE or something?

shawnxie999 · 2025-01-10T21:57:24Z

src/xrpld/app/misc/NetworkOPs.cpp

+    // This function is called by several different parts of the codebase
+    // under no circumstances will we ever accept an inner txn within a batch
+    // txn from the network.
+    auto const tx = *transaction->getSTransaction();


Suggested change

auto const tx = *transaction->getSTransaction();

auto const sttx = *transaction->getSTransaction();

consider renaming this since tx conflicts with transaction

shawnxie999 · 2025-01-10T21:59:32Z

src/xrpld/app/misc/NetworkOPs.cpp

@@ -1475,12 +1495,13 @@ NetworkOPsImp::apply(std::unique_lock<std::mutex>& batchLock)
                auto const toSkip =
                    app_.getHashRouter().shouldRelay(e.transaction->getID());

-                if (toSkip)
+                if (auto const txn = *(e.transaction->getSTransaction());


Suggested change

if (auto const txn = *(e.transaction->getSTransaction());

if (auto const sttx = *(e.transaction->getSTransaction());

consider renaming txn since it conflicts with tx

shawnxie999 · 2025-01-10T21:59:57Z

src/xrpld/app/misc/NetworkOPs.cpp

                {
                    protocol::TMTransaction tx;
                    Serializer s;

-                    e.transaction->getSTransaction()->add(s);
+                    txn.add(s);


mvadari · 2025-01-11T06:01:52Z

include/xrpl/protocol/STObject.h

+    std::vector<uint256>
+    getBatchTransactionIDs() const;


Shouldn't this live on STTx, not STObject?

mvadari · 2025-01-11T06:02:48Z

include/xrpl/protocol/detail/transactions.macro

@@ -465,6 +465,12 @@ TRANSACTION(ttPERMISSIONED_DOMAIN_DELETE, 63, PermissionedDomainDelete, ({
    {sfDomainID, soeREQUIRED},
 }))

+/** This transaction type wraps inner transactions for batch. */


nit:

Suggested change

/** This transaction type wraps inner transactions for batch. */

/** This transaction type batches together transactions. */

mvadari · 2025-01-11T06:03:22Z

src/libxrpl/protocol/STObject.cpp

+std::vector<uint256>
+STObject::getBatchTransactionIDs() const
+{
+    assert(getFieldArray(sfRawTransactions).size() != 0);


Suggested change

assert(getFieldArray(sfRawTransactions).size() != 0);

XRPL_ASSERT(isFieldPresent(sfRawTransactions) && getFieldArray(sfRawTransactions).size() != 0);

mvadari · 2025-01-11T06:03:47Z

src/libxrpl/protocol/STObject.cpp

+    for (STObject const& rb : getFieldArray(sfRawTransactions))
+        batch_txn_ids_.push_back(rb.getHash(HashPrefix::transactionID));
+
+    assert(batch_txn_ids_.size() == getFieldArray(sfRawTransactions).size());


Suggested change

assert(batch_txn_ids_.size() == getFieldArray(sfRawTransactions).size());

XRPL_ASSERT(batch_txn_ids_.size() == getFieldArray(sfRawTransactions).size());

Same with all the other asserts in this PR

mvadari · 2025-01-11T06:04:20Z

src/libxrpl/protocol/STTx.cpp

+    catch (std::exception const&)
+    {
+    }
+    return Unexpected("Internal signature check failure.");


Shouldn't this line be in the catch block?

mvadari · 2025-01-11T06:05:50Z

src/xrpld/app/ledger/detail/OpenLedger.cpp

+        // skip batch txns
+        if (tx->isFlag(tfInnerBatchTxn))
+        {
+            assert(


Suggested change

assert(

XRPL_ASSERT(

mvadari · 2025-01-11T06:06:14Z

src/xrpld/app/ledger/detail/OpenLedger.cpp

+            assert(
+                txpair.second &&
+                txpair.second->isFieldPresent(sfParentBatchID));
+            continue;


Is it possible to write a unit test to cover this line?

mvadari · 2025-01-11T06:06:53Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/ApplyContext.h

-        XRPAmount baseFee,
+        Application& app_,
+        OpenView& base_,
+        std::optional<uint256 const> const& batchId,


Suggested change

std::optional<uint256 const> const& batchId,

std::optional<uint256 const> const& batchId_,

I just want to point out that the reason there is no underscore is because the .cpp file has no underscore for the arg. The reason for this is so that you don't end up with `batchId_(batchId_)

So imo all of these _ changes are probably incorrect. I will circle back to them though as I dont think its that important.

mvadari · 2025-01-11T08:36:50Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/Batch.cpp

+        }
+
+        // Add the inner account to the unique signers set.
+        uniqueSigners.emplace(innerAccount);


Some rough pseudo-code that might help with rearranging the code (I know it's a weird mishmash of syntaxes, it's pseudo-code for a reason):

set<Account> uniqueAccounts; for innerTx in rawTransactions: // existing processing for each inner tx uniqueAccounts.insert(innerTx[sfAccount]); set<Account> uniqueSigners; uniqueSigners.insert(tx[sfAccount]); for signer in signers: Account signerAccount = signer[sfAccount]; if (!uniqueSigners.insert(signerAccount).second) // duplicate signer return temBAD_SIGNER; if (!uniqueAccounts.pop(signerAccount)) // signerAccount isn't included in the raw transactions return temBAD_SIGNER; // remove the outer account, if included if (uniqueAccounts.contains(tx[sfAccount]) uniqueAccounts.pop(tx[sfAccount]); if (!uniqueAccounts.empty()) // all BatchSigners and the outer account have been removed // any account left doesn't have a signature included // (I think this is the part that isn't currently being checked) return temBAD_SIGNER;

mvadari · 2025-01-11T08:37:40Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/Batch.cpp

+    }
+
+    auto rawTxns = ctx.tx.getFieldArray(sfRawTransactions);
+    if (rawTxns.size() == 0)


Shouldn't this check size >= 1? No reason to allow length-1 Batches, right?

mvadari · 2025-01-12T00:50:29Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/Batch.cpp

+    }
+    return tesSUCCESS;
+}
+


Should there be a preclaim that makes sure all the Accounts in the inner Batches exist? Or is it fine to just trust that to the inner Batch validation?

mvadari · 2025-01-12T00:51:04Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/Batch.cpp

+    {
+        JLOG(ctx.j.trace())
+            << "BatchTrace[" << batchId << "]:" << "invalid batch signers.";
+        return temBAD_SIGNER;


Please add a test that covers this line

mvadari · 2025-01-12T00:51:16Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/Batch.cpp

+                JLOG(ctx.j.trace())
+                    << "BatchTrace[" << batchId
+                    << "]:" << "duplicate signer found: " << signerAccount;
+                return temBAD_SIGNER;


Please add a test that covers this line

mvadari · 2025-01-12T00:52:46Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/Batch.cpp

+        JLOG(ctx.j.trace()) << "BatchTrace[" << batchId
+                            << "]:" << "hashes array size does not match txns.";
+        return temMALFORMED;  // LCOV_EXCL_LINE


Shouldn't this throw something more serious now, since this shouldn't be possible anymore? Maybe an assert instead?

mvadari · 2025-01-12T00:53:21Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/Batch.cpp

+                << "BatchTrace[" << batchId
+                << "]:" << "TransactionType missing in inner txn."
+                << "txID: " << hash;
+            return temINVALID_BATCH;  // LCOV_EXCL_LINE


Why is this line excluded from code coverage?

mvadari · 2025-01-12T03:41:50Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/InvariantCheck.cpp

@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ XRPNotCreated::visitEntry(
 bool
 XRPNotCreated::finalize(
    STTx const& tx,
-    TER const,
+    TER const res,


Unnecessary change now

mvadari · 2025-01-12T03:44:29Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/Transactor.cpp

+            !ctx.tx.getSigningPubKey().empty() ||
+            ctx.tx.isFieldPresent(sfSigners))
+        {
+            return temINVALID_FLAG;


Judging by the comment, this line isn't possible to hit - in which case this should be excluded from code coverage.

Unsure whether that's the right error code though - perhaps it should be temBAD_SIGNATURE instead?

mvadari · 2025-01-12T03:46:03Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/Batch.cpp

+                << "BatchTrace[" << batchId
+                << "]:" << "batch cannot have an inner batch txn."
+                << "txID: " << hash;


nit:

Suggested change

<< "BatchTrace[" << batchId

<< "]:" << "batch cannot have an inner batch txn."

<< "txID: " << hash;

<< "BatchTrace[" << batchId << "]: "

<< "batch cannot have an inner batch txn. "

<< "txID: " << hash;

ditto with all the other comments

mvadari · 2025-01-12T03:49:15Z

src/libxrpl/protocol/TER.cpp

@@ -208,6 +208,7 @@ transResults()
        MAKE_ERROR(temARRAY_EMPTY,               "Malformed: Array is empty."),
        MAKE_ERROR(temARRAY_TOO_LARGE,           "Malformed: Array is too large."),
        MAKE_ERROR(temBAD_TRANSFER_FEE,          "Malformed: Transfer fee is outside valid range."),
+        MAKE_ERROR(temINVALID_BATCH,             "Malformed: Invalid inner batch transaction."),


Thoughts on just calling the error code temINVALID_INNER_BATCH? Feels a bit clearer.

mvadari · 2025-01-12T03:49:53Z

src/xrpld/app/misc/NetworkOPs.cpp

@@ -2777,6 +2798,10 @@ NetworkOPsImp::pubProposedTransaction(
    std::shared_ptr<STTx const> const& transaction,
    TER result)
 {
+    // never publish an inner txn inside a batch txn
+    if (transaction->isFlag(tfInnerBatchTxn))
+        return;


Is there a way to cover this line with a test?

dangell7 added 2 commits July 10, 2024 17:44

featureBatch rough draft

879aba5

clang-format

46fd68f

dangell7 added 13 commits July 17, 2024 20:33

add atomic swap

c57ace7

Merge branch 'develop' into feature-batch

91d9909

add batch bsig

f37377d

[fold] clang-format

b3136a2

[fold] remove tapRETRY

5e919eb

[fold] remove comments

1225a61

[fold] fix invariant workaround

304ff3e

[fold] fix applyTransaction workaround

aded948

[fold] remove test template

82d4943

[fold] update logging

eaf7893

[fold] remove log

ca39807

clang-format

dd71073

[fold] remove workaround

26518a5

cindyyan317 reviewed Jul 30, 2024

View reviewed changes

src/libxrpl/protocol/STTx.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

dangell7 added 6 commits July 30, 2024 14:05

update atomic

3ceb05c

refactor & OpenView revert()

12324f1

This is not finished. Needs to only revert the transactions submitted not the entire open ledger.

[fold] clang-format

e9f045b

Merge branch 'develop' into feature-batch

51ed234

[fold] add revert

676b9b6

[fold] clang-format

6c6180d

ximinez reviewed Jul 31, 2024

View reviewed changes

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/Batch.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

dangell7 marked this pull request as draft July 31, 2024 19:53

dangell7 added 4 commits August 1, 2024 10:37

[revert] remove rawRevert func

bd03ea3

refactor with stacking views

c0e00b0

clang-format

a3e15a1

Merge branch 'develop' into feature-batch

14eef60

[fold] clang-format

893b116

shawnxie999 reviewed Jan 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

dangell7 added 2 commits January 10, 2025 14:45

[fold] remove sfTransactionIDs

27e84dc

[fold] clang-format

a1ebf0b

shawnxie999 reviewed Jan 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

mvadari reviewed Jan 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

shawnxie999 reviewed Jan 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

dangell7 added 6 commits January 10, 2025 20:27

[fold] rename rpc error temINVALID_FLAG

89ee58e

[fold] add pseudo txn

971c848

[fold] clang-format

aadb21a

Merge branch 'develop' into feature-batch

ae26673

[merge] bump feature #

c120902

[merge] fix bad merge

c2ca91c

mvadari reviewed Jan 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

dangell7 added 2 commits January 11, 2025 18:51

[fold] add missing signers validation

c84166e

[fold] refactor preflight

accc8e0

mvadari reviewed Jan 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

	batch::add(pay(alice, bob, XRP(1)), seq + 3),
	batch::add(pay(alice, bob, XRP(2)), seq + 3),

		// BEAST_EXPECT(jrr[jss::meta][sfParentBatchID.jsonName] ==
		// batchId);

		env(batch::batch(alice, seq, batchFee, tfAllOrNothing),
		txflags(tfDisallowXRP),

	auto const tx = *transaction->getSTransaction();
	auto const sttx = *transaction->getSTransaction();

	if (auto const txn = *(e.transaction->getSTransaction());
	if (auto const sttx = *(e.transaction->getSTransaction());

	/** This transaction type wraps inner transactions for batch. */
	/** This transaction type batches together transactions. */

	assert(getFieldArray(sfRawTransactions).size() != 0);
	XRPL_ASSERT(isFieldPresent(sfRawTransactions) && getFieldArray(sfRawTransactions).size() != 0);

	assert(batch_txn_ids_.size() == getFieldArray(sfRawTransactions).size());
	XRPL_ASSERT(batch_txn_ids_.size() == getFieldArray(sfRawTransactions).size());

	std::optional<uint256 const> const& batchId,
	std::optional<uint256 const> const& batchId_,

Batch Amendment #5060

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Batch Amendment #5060

Conversation

dangell7 commented Jul 10, 2024 • edited Loading

High Level Overview of Change

Context of Change

Type of Change

API Impact

Test Plan

codecov bot commented Jul 10, 2024 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

ximinez commented Jul 31, 2024

shawnxie999 Jan 10, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mvadari Jan 10, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mvadari Jan 10, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dangell7 commented Jul 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Jul 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

shawnxie999 Jan 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mvadari Jan 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mvadari Jan 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading