LBRYCommunity/lbrycrd
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 29 Pull requests 1 Projects Releases 32 Packages Wiki Activity

WIP: Refactor claim index [currently being investigated, dont merge] #195

Closed
shyba wants to merge 295 commits from refactor_claim_index into master
pull from: refactor_claim_index
merge into: LBRYCommunity:master
Conversation 5 Commits 295 Files changed 119 +80 -21
shyba commented 2018-08-22 17:07:39 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link
No description provided.
BrannonKing (Migrated from github.com) requested changes 2018-08-22 17:20:05 +02:00
src/rpc/claimtrie.cpp
BrannonKing (Migrated from github.com) commented 2018-08-22 17:19:27 +02:00
Copy link

getClaimById should not be called twice.

`getClaimById` should not be called twice.
shyba (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2018-08-22 17:41:12 +02:00
src/rpc/claimtrie.cpp
shyba (Migrated from github.com) commented 2018-08-22 17:41:12 +02:00
Copy link

thanks, squashed and force pushed

thanks, squashed and force pushed
lbrynaut (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2018-08-22 17:47:30 +02:00
lbrynaut (Migrated from github.com) left a comment
Copy link

Squash all commits.

Update for style to avoid travis error.

We also need to test this to be sure it works as expected. There could be db corruption elsewhere unrelated to this, so let me know your findings.

Squash all commits. Update for style to avoid travis error. We also need to test this to be sure it works as expected. There could be db corruption elsewhere unrelated to this, so let me know your findings.
src/rpc/claimtrie.cpp
lbrynaut (Migrated from github.com) commented 2018-08-22 17:45:47 +02:00
Copy link

Duplicate of line 409 (remove either this or your addition)

Duplicate of line 409 (remove either this or your addition)
src/test/claimtriebranching_tests.cpp
@ -833,3 +833,3 @@
const std::string name = "test";
CMutableTransaction tx1 = fixture.MakeClaim(fixture.GetCoinbase(), name, "one", 1);
CMutableTransaction tx1 = fixture.MakeClaim(fixture.GetCoinbase(), name, "one", 2);
uint160 claimId = ClaimIdHash(tx1.GetHash(), 0);
lbrynaut (Migrated from github.com) commented 2018-08-22 17:46:21 +02:00
Copy link

Why is this changing?

Why is this changing?
src/test/claimtriebranching_tests.cpp
@ -840,6 +840,7 @@ BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(get_claim_by_id_test)
pclaimTrie->getClaimById(claimId, claimName, claimValue);
BOOST_CHECK(claimName == name);
BOOST_CHECK(claimValue.claimId == claimId);
BOOST_CHECK(claimValue.nAmount == 2);
lbrynaut (Migrated from github.com) commented 2018-08-22 17:46:41 +02:00
Copy link

Why is this changing?

Why is this changing?
shyba (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2018-08-22 17:55:53 +02:00
src/test/claimtriebranching_tests.cpp
@ -833,3 +833,3 @@
const std::string name = "test";
CMutableTransaction tx1 = fixture.MakeClaim(fixture.GetCoinbase(), name, "one", 1);
CMutableTransaction tx1 = fixture.MakeClaim(fixture.GetCoinbase(), name, "one", 2);
uint160 claimId = ClaimIdHash(tx1.GetHash(), 0);
shyba (Migrated from github.com) commented 2018-08-22 17:55:53 +02:00
Copy link

So the update can test the value stored at the index also gets updated from 2 to 1.

So the update can test the value stored at the index also gets updated from 2 to 1.
shyba (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2018-08-22 17:56:10 +02:00
src/test/claimtriebranching_tests.cpp
@ -840,6 +840,7 @@ BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(get_claim_by_id_test)
pclaimTrie->getClaimById(claimId, claimName, claimValue);
BOOST_CHECK(claimName == name);
BOOST_CHECK(claimValue.claimId == claimId);
BOOST_CHECK(claimValue.nAmount == 2);
shyba (Migrated from github.com) commented 2018-08-22 17:56:10 +02:00
Copy link

typo, fixing. I meant to do this only to tx1

typo, fixing. I meant to do this only to tx1
shyba commented 2018-08-22 18:16:22 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

squashed, fixed style, duplicated json field and typo on tests.

squashed, fixed style, duplicated json field and typo on tests.
shyba commented 2018-08-23 04:36:26 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

Added a command to debug the issue:

./lbrycrd-cli help getmissingclaimsfromindex                                            
getmissingclaimsfromindex
Return the claims that arent on claims_by_id index.
Arguments:
None
Result:
[
  "name"           (string) the claimed name
  "claimId"        (string) the claim id
]

Please don't merge that commit. We can remove it once we have a definitive fix or the reason for that to be happening.

Added a command to debug the issue: ``` ./lbrycrd-cli help getmissingclaimsfromindex getmissingclaimsfromindex Return the claims that arent on claims_by_id index. Arguments: None Result: [ "name" (string) the claimed name "claimId" (string) the claim id ] ``` Please don't merge that commit. We can remove it once we have a definitive fix or the reason for that to be happening.
lbrynaut commented 2018-08-23 21:28:29 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

@shyba Thanks for bringing this issue up. I looked into it a little bit and have a theory on what's going wrong, but will need some more time analyzing before testing a fix. It's unrelated to this though, so no need to merge here. If there's an existing issue related to this, please link it here.

@shyba Thanks for bringing this issue up. I looked into it a little bit and have a theory on what's going wrong, but will need some more time analyzing before testing a fix. It's unrelated to this though, so no need to merge here. If there's an existing issue related to this, please link it here.
shyba commented 2018-08-23 21:46:17 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

That one is actually a cosmetic byproduct from when I was investigating. It's some unit tests and a refactor. The only issue being solved in this PR is when the value field fails it won't return a result instead of returning an empty value. However that's also caused by the index issues.
If the refactor and the unit tests proves to be useful you can merge them, but otherwise we can close this PR. It's mostly investigation byproducts.

That one is actually a cosmetic byproduct from when I was investigating. It's some unit tests and a refactor. The only issue being solved in this PR is when the `value` field fails it won't return a result instead of returning an empty value. However that's also caused by the index issues. If the refactor and the unit tests proves to be useful you can merge them, but otherwise we can close this PR. It's mostly investigation byproducts.
lbrynaut commented 2018-08-24 03:44:10 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

If the refactor and the unit tests proves to be useful you can merge them, but otherwise we can close this PR. It's mostly investigation byproducts.

See #197. If/when that's merged, please issue a PR to re-add the unit testing.

> If the refactor and the unit tests proves to be useful you can merge them, but otherwise we can close this PR. It's mostly investigation byproducts. See #197. If/when that's merged, please issue a PR to re-add the unit testing.
👍 1

Pull request closed

This pull request cannot be reopened because the branch was deleted.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
BrannonKing
Labels
Clear labels   
area: devops

   
area: discovery

   
area: docs

   
area: livestream

   
area: proposal

Work is part of a proposal

  
consider soon

Discuss this issue at the next planning meeting, then remove this label

  
Epic

   
good first issue

   
hacktoberfest

Welcome to Hacktoberfest

  
hard fork

   
help wanted

   
icebox

Long-term storage

  
Invalid

   
level: 0

   
level: 1

No knowledge of the existing code required

  
level: 2

Some knowledge of the existing code is recommended

  
level: 3

Significant knowledge of the existing code is recommended

  
level: 4

Intimate knowledge of the existing code is recommended

  
needs: exploration

Solution unclear, needs research

  
needs: grooming

Issue needs to be groomed before work can start

  
needs: priority

Priority level needs to be defined

  
needs: repro

Issue needs step-by-step instructions on how to reproduce in latest code

  
needs: tech design

Needs technical design signoff before implementation can begin

  
on hold

Temporarily paused

  
priority: blocker

Issue is blocking release, do ASAP

  
priority: high

Work needs to be moved into sprint ASAP

  
priority: low

Work should be done but can stay in the backlog for now

  
priority: medium

Work needs to be done within 2-3 sprints

  
resilience

   
soft fork

   
Tom's Wishlist

   
type: bug

Existing functionality is wrong or broken

  
type: discussion

A conversation. No specific changes requested

  
type: improvement

Existing (or partially existing) functionality needs to be changed

  
type: new feature

New functionality that does not exist yet

  
type: refactor

Minimal user-visible changes, but significant internal work

  
type: task

Either work that's not related to the code, or a small chore that does not fit into other categories

  
type: testing

Solution needs additional user testing

  
unplanned

Work that was not planned into the spirnt, took priority over planned work

  
work in progress

The proposed solution is still incomplete.

No labels
area: devops
area: discovery
area: docs
area: livestream
area: proposal
consider soon
Epic
good first issue
hacktoberfest
hard fork
help wanted
icebox
Invalid
level: 0
level: 1
level: 2
level: 3
level: 4
needs: exploration
needs: grooming
needs: priority
needs: repro
needs: tech design
on hold
priority: blocker
priority: high
priority: low
priority: medium
resilience
soft fork
Tom's Wishlist
type: bug
type: discussion
type: improvement
type: new feature
type: refactor
type: task
type: testing
unplanned
work in progress
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: LBRYCommunity/lbrycrd#195
No description provided.
Delete branch "refactor_claim_index"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?