Treat expired temporary entries as not found in the RPC #979
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
leighmcculloch
changed the title
dmkozh
reviewed
Sep 20, 2023
| TryInto::<Box<dyn ExpirableLedgerEntry>>::try_into(&entry_and_expiration) | ||
| { | ||
| if expirable_entry.durability() != Persistent { | ||
| return Err(Error::NotFound); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure I understand this, why don't we do a has_expired check here? Seems like every temp entry will be NotFound now...
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What
Treat expired temporary entries as not found in the RPC when looking up data for preflight.
Why
According to the discussion [here] the RPC is treating temporary entries as found and so once they are expired and until their found the RPC is not identifying that the temporary entry will be a new entry created during the call and the refundable fee is not being calculated to include for that cost.
@tsachiherman asked me to run a test with this small change to see if it would fix the problem. This isn't a complete fix. There's code elsewhere in the file being edited that really should be looked over and tidied up. Also there needs to be tests for this. This change just holds a quick hack to confirm this is the problem.