8000 Tiny contract test fails on protomainnet and it works fine on testnet. · Issue #2350 · Zilliqa/zq2 · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to content

Tiny contract test fails on protomainnet and it works fine on testnet. #2350

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
chetan-zilliqa opened this issue Feb 14, 2025 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #2524
Open

Tiny contract test fails on protomainnet and it works fine on testnet. #2350

chetan-zilliqa opened this issue Feb 14, 2025 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #2524
Assignees
@saeed-zil
Labels
Agate Required for mainnet launch

Comments

@chetan-zilliqa
Copy link
Contributor

I was testing the tiny contract test - https://github.com/Zilliqa/zli.
There are 1 to 26 testcases. However, I have observed that the 6th number test fails on protomainnet. The same test suite works fine in community testnet.

Transaction Failed - https://explorer.zq2-protomainnet.zilliqa.com/tx/0x23b9cb80dbd358aa73cdda908b1b1c6c76d2f3e226c91a6cab792c66715a496b

Testnet passed - https://devex.zilliqa.com/tx/c0a80e9bdf30f929a977e4392a7ee19ea1dce174226ec0d678edd167fc6e3a99?network=https%3A%2F%2Fdev-api.zilliqa.com
@chetan-zilliqa chetan-zilliqa added the Agate Required for mainnet launch label Feb 14, 2025
@chetan-zilliqa chetan-zilliqa changed the title Tiny contract test fails on prototestnet and it works fine on testnet. Tiny contract test fails on protomainnet and it works fine on testnet. Feb 14, 2025
@saeed-zil
Copy link
Contributor

The correct state after running t1, t2, t3, t4, t5 transitions must be like:

{
   "_balance":"0",
   "f_m":{
      
   },
   "f_m1":{
      
   },
   "f_m2":{
      "key1a":{
         "key2a":"420"
      },
      "key1b":{
         "key2b":"840",
         "key2c":"841"
      }
   },
   "f_m3":{
      
   },
   "f_s1":"421"
}

but it's like this, incorrectly:

{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "id": 1,
  "result": {
    "_balance": "0",
    "f_m2": {
      "key1a": {
        "key1b": {
          "key2b": "840",
          "key2c": "841"
        },
        "key2a": "420"
      }
    },
    "f_s1": "421"
  }
}

@saeed-zil
Copy link
Contributor

This means that in the transition t5, when we wanted to add the key1b map to f_m2, we added it under the key1a key.

@saeed-zil saeed-zil linked a pull request Mar 17, 2025 that will close this issue
fix: add a separator after variable name in storage key generation to prevent prefix collisions. #2524
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@saeed-zil saeed-zil

Labels
Agate Required for mainnet launch
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
2 participants
@chetan-zilliqa @saeed-zil
0