-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
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
NeoToken: accept candidate registration via onNEP17Payment #3597
NeoToken: accept candidate registration via onNEP17Payment #3597
Conversation
Just a side note: this is also an issue when deploying a smart contract. |
Could it be better with only |
Depends on the server, I think 20 GAS is enough usually.
NEO (contract) receives some GAS in this scheme, if it's not burnt NEO will have some GAS on its account which is somewhat weird and was never intended to happened. |
[ContractMethod(RequiredCallFlags = CallFlags.States)] | ||
private bool RegisterCandidate(ApplicationEngine engine, ECPoint pubkey) | ||
{ | ||
if (!engine.CheckWitnessInternal(Contract.CreateSignatureRedeemScript(pubkey).ToScriptHash())) | ||
return false; | ||
// In the unit of datoshi, 1 datoshi = 1e-8 GAS | ||
engine.AddFee(GetRegisterPrice(engine.SnapshotCache)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why not return false if AddFee
is not possible? Something like TryAddFee
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This won't help. The appropriate amount of GAS is already in the system fee (which is burnt forever before transaction is executed). If not, it'll fail and still burn whatever GAS is in the system fee.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This won't help. The appropriate amount of GAS is already in the system fee (which is burnt forever before transaction is executed). If not, it'll fail and still burn whatever GAS is in the system fee.
And create a new syscall, TryRegisterCandidate
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How can it help? We need GAS. It either comes from the system fee or via a transfer. The first one burns the fee irrespective of the outcome. The second is what we have here.
The only other option is GAS.Transfer(pub_key_owner, ...)
or even direct GAS.Burn(pub_key_owner, ...)
call from NEO contract itself, but that's not the NEP-27 way. Transfers should be transfers and NEO deducting something from our GAS balance doesn't look nice.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Por testing you can try and for execute you can not try 😆
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
we can find a global solution for it, maybe we have this problem in a different contract
And we have one. It's NEP-27. Allows to send any amounts of any token to some contract safely.
We can add extra gas for invokes that can only be burned, not consumed by opcodes
Once upon a time there was #2444. And then there was #2560. It can't work, system fee must be burned into ashes prior to execution.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This problem is #3552 (MaxBlockSystemFee
) first of all. Solving RPC estimations is just a (very) nice side-effect.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The behaviour is different, before if was wrong signed, the fee was not burned
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The system fee is already gone by the time this executes (whether it's sufficient or not). The only thing left here is #3597 (comment), I can fix it, OK.
|
||
await GAS.Burn(engine, Hash, amount); | ||
|
||
RegisterInternal(engine, pubkey); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
directly call registerinternal
here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Isn't this a direct call?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I mean, can this be mistakenly triggered? cause there is only a GAS token and amount check.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We need to share some code between the old registerCandidate
and new onNEP17Payment
(two externally-available contract methods), that's RegisterInternal
(which is private).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i understand how you want it to work, but my concern is can we have some way to explicitly telling the system that the transaction is for registration? for instance a string "registerCandidate" in data.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can be done, data
can be anything, for example an array of ["registerCandidate", pubkey]
. Here we have the minimal data
possible (key only). It's hard to expect any extensions of this callback, but even if needed it still can be done in a compatible way (accept an array or anything else instead of key).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Otherwise LGTM.
1f44969
to
8f358d6
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Otherwise LGTM.
var pubkey = ECPoint.DecodePoint(data.GetSpan(), ECCurve.Secp256r1); | ||
|
||
if (!RegisterInternal(engine, pubkey)) | ||
throw new InvalidOperationException("failed to register candidate"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We don't burn it before throw?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
throw
is like ABORT
here, transaction will end up in FAULT
state, nothing happened.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
a reason why a want to update these exception name to uncatchableexception~~~
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Uncatchable
can also be misunderstood, I can catch it in various places, it's just that VM/contracts are not even aware of this happening.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
uncatachable should be named as normal. Name should be VMException
with inner exception of normal name. Thats kind of how it done currently in the vm.
8f358d6
to
cedae6a
Compare
// This check can be removed post-Echidna if compatible, | ||
// RegisterInternal does this anyway. | ||
var index = engine.PersistingBlock?.Index ?? Ledger.CurrentIndex(engine.SnapshotCache); | ||
if (!engine.ProtocolSettings.IsHardforkEnabled(Hardfork.HF_Echidna, index) && |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe we should allow it also with Echidna, it doesn't hurt
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This will require us keeping it forever then (in which case it's easier to duplicate the check). But my intention was to drop this check here eventually (keeping it in RegisterInternal
only). But I'm OK with any option.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
to drop this check here eventually
Vote up for this, we may remove this code after transition to Echidna, and the code will be more pretty. But we need an issue for that in order not to forget.
BTW, @shargon, did you do 6d2d121 manually? Because it was formatted a bit differently originally and then I just did |
Yes it was manually... maybe github use tabs... |
Solves two problems: * inability to estimate GAS needed for registerCandidate in a regular way because of its very high fee (more than what normal RPC servers allow) * inability to have MaxBlockSystemFee lower than the registration price which is very high on its own (more than practically possible to execute) Fixes neo-project#3552. Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <[email protected]>
6d2d121
to
a1ff32c
Compare
Follow #3597. Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <[email protected]>
Follow #3597. Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <[email protected]>
Follow #3597. Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <[email protected]>
#3597 introduces `onNEP17Payment` handler to native NeoToke contract starting from Echidna hardfork. We need to update the list of supported standards respectively. Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <[email protected]>
#3597 introduces `onNEP17Payment` handler to native NeoToke contract starting from Echidna hardfork. We need to update the list of supported standards respectively. Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <[email protected]>
Solves two problems:
Fixes #3552.