In order to automatically run unit tests with newly created
amendments, prefer to start with jtx::supported_features() and
then subtract unwanted features.
These changes identified a few bugs that were hiding in
amendments. One of those bugs, in FlowCross, is not yet fixed.
By uncommenting the test in CrossingLimits_test.cpp you can see
failures relating to that bug. Since FlowCross is not yet
enabled on the network we can fix the bug at our convenience.
Both Tickets and SHAMapV2 have been around for a while and don't
look like they will be enabled on the network soon. So they are
removed from the supportedAmendments list. This prevents Env
from automatically testing with Tickets or SHAMapV2 enabled,
although testing with those features can still be explicitly
specified.
Drive-by cleanups:
o supportedAmendments() returns a const reference rather than
a fresh vector on each call.
o supportedAmendments() implementation moved from Amendments.cpp
to Feature.cpp. Amendments.cpp deleted.
o supportedAmendments() declared in Feature.h. All other
declarations deleted.
o preEnabledAmendments() removed, since it was empty and only
used in one place. It will be easy to re-add when it is needed.
o jtx::all_features_except() renamed to
jtx::supported_features_except(), which is more descriptive.
o jtx::all_amendments() renamed to jxt::supported_amendments()
o jtx::with_features() renamed to with_only_features()
o Env_test.cpp adjusted since featureTickets is no longer
automatically enabled for unit tests.
Enable all supported amendments in Env by default. Rename `features()`
to `with_features()` and add `all_features_except()` to support feature
subsets in Env. Refactor internal feature handling based on a bitset.
Replace Taker.cpp with calls to the payment flow() code.
This change required a number of tweaks in the payment flow code.
These tweaks are conditionalized on whether or not offer crossing
is taking place. The flag is explicitly passed as a parameter to
the flow code.
For testing, a class was added that identifies differences in the
contents of two PaymentSandboxes. That code may be reusable in
the future.
None of the Taker offer crossing code is removed. Both versions
of the code are co-resident to support an amendment cut-over.
The code that identifies differences between Taker and Flow offer
crossing is enabled by a feature. That makes it easy to enable
or disable difference logging by changing the config file. This
approach models what was done with the payment flow code. The
differencing code should never be enabled on a production server.
Extensive offer crossing unit tests are added to examine and
verify the behavior of corner cases. The tests are currently
configured to run against both Taker and Flow offer crossing.
This gives us confidence that most cases run identically and
some of the (few) differences in behavior are documented.
`env.fund` requires two transactions: `pay` and `set account`. If there is a
`trust` transaction in the same set of txs, the txs may be reordered so
`pay` -> `trust` -> `set account` so the wrong `no ripple` flag would be used
on the trust line.
Adding a `close` between `env.fund` and `env.trust` resolves this problem.
* Sanity check on newly created strands
* Better loop detection
* Better tests (test every combination of path element pairs)
* Disallow any root issuer (even for xrp)
* Disallow compount element typs in path
* Issue was not reset when currency was XRP
* Add amendment
The deferred credits table can compute a balance that's different from the
ledger balance.
Syntax:
A number written with no decimal means that number exactly. I.e. "12". A number
written with a decimal means that number has a non-zero digit at the lowest
order digit. I.e. "12.XX" means a number like "12.00000000000005"
Consider the following payment:
alice (USD) -> USD/XRP -> (XRP) Bob
Alice initially has 12.XX USD in her account.
The strand is used to debit alice the following amounts:
1) Debit alice 5
2) Debit alice 0.XX
3) Debit alice 3.XX
The next time the strand is explored, alice has a USD/XRP offer on the books,
and her account is credited:
1) Credit alice 20
When the beginning of the strand is reached, consider what happens when alice is
a limiting step. Calculate how much we can get out the step. According to the
deferred credit table this is:
12.XX - (5 + 0.XX + 3.XX)
This is also limited by alice's balance, which is large thanks to the credit she
received in the book step.
Now that the step has calculated how much we can get out, throw out the
sandbox (the one with the credit), and re-execute. However, the following error
occurs. We asked for 12.XX - (5 + 0.XX + 3.XX). However, the ledger has
calculated that alice has:
((12.XX - 5) - 0.XX) - 3.XX
That's a problem, because that number is smaller. Notice that there are two
precision losing operations in the deferred credits table:
1) The 5 + 0.XX step
2) The 12.XX - (total of debits). (Notice total of debits is < 10)
However, there is only one precision losing operation in the ledger calculation:
1) (Subtotal of 12.XX-5) - 0.XX
That means the calculation for the ledger results in a number that's smaller
than the deferred credits. Flow detects this as a re-execution error.
If the mantissas of two non-native amounts differ by less than 10, then
subtracting them leaves a result of zero. This can cause situations
where `a>b`, yet `a-b == 0`.
One consequence of this is unfunded offers were incorrectly left in
order books. The code would check if the offer would be
consumed (`amount in offer > amount needed`), assume it wouldn't be,
yet when `amount needed` was subtracted from `amount in offer` the
result was zero and the offer was unfunded. This unfunded offer
incorrectly remained on the order book.
This patch fixes this bug.
