FIXES: #2847
* Transactions that are submitted with the fail_hard flag
and that result in any TER code besides tesSUCCESS shall
be neither queued nor held.
[FOLD] Keep tec results out of the open ledger when fail_hard:
* Improve TransactionStatus const correctness, and remove redundant
`local` check
* Check open ledger tx count in fail_hard tests
* Fix some wrapping
* Remove duplicate test
The XRP Ledger utilizes an account model. Unlike systems based on a UTXO
model, XRP Ledger accounts are first-class objects. This design choice
allows the XRP Ledger to offer rich functionality, including the ability
to own objects (offers, escrows, checks, signer lists) as well as other
advanced features, such as key rotation and configurable multi-signing
without needing to change a destination address.
The trade-off is that accounts must be stored on ledger. The XRP Ledger
applies reserve requirements, in XRP, to protect the shared global ledger
from growing excessively large as the result of spam or malicious usage.
Prior to this commit, accounts had been permanent objects; once created,
they could never be deleted.
This commit introduces a new amendment "DeletableAccounts" which, if
enabled, will allow account objects to be deleted by executing the new
"AccountDelete" transaction. Any funds remaining in the account will
be transferred to an account specified in the deletion transaction.
The amendment changes the mechanics of account creation; previously
a new account would have an initial sequence number of 1. Accounts
created after the amendment will have an initial sequence number that
is equal to the ledger in which the account was created.
Accounts can only be deleted if they are not associated with any
obligations (like RippleStates, Escrows, or PayChannels) and if the
current ledger sequence number exceeds the account's sequence number
by at least 256 so that, if recreated, the account can be protected
from transaction replay.
Many of the warnings on Windows were not resolved, just
silenced with _SILENCE_ALL_CXX17_DEPRECATION_WARNINGS.
They need to be resolved in a future commit.
The six different ranges of TER codes are broken up into six
different enumerations. A template class allows subsets of
these enumerations to be aggregated. This technique allows
verification at compile time that no TEC codes are returned
before the signature is checked.
Conversion between TER instance and integer is provided by
named functions. This makes accidental conversion almost
impossible and makes type abuse easier to spot in the code
base.
* The compiler can provide many non-explicit constructors for
aggregate types. This is sometimes desired, but it can
happen accidentally, resulting in run-time errors.
* This commit assures that no types are aggregates unless existing
code is using aggregate initialization.
Introduce a new ledger type: ltCHECK
Introduce three new transactions that operate on checks:
- "CheckCreate" which adds the check entry to the ledger. The
check is a promise from the source of the check that the
destination of the check may cash the check and receive up to
the SendMax specified on the check. The check may have an
expiration, after which the check may no longer be cashed.
- "CheckCash" is a request by the destination of the check to
transfer a requested amount of funds, up to the check's SendMax,
from the source to the destination. The destination may receive
less than the SendMax due to transfer fees.
When cashing a check, the destination specifies the smallest
amount of funds that will be acceptable. If the transfer
completes and delivers the requested amount, then the check is
considered cashed and removed from the ledger. If enough funds
cannot be delivered, then the transaction fails and the check
remains in the ledger.
Attempting to cash the check after its expiration will fail.
- "CheckCancel" removes the check from the ledger without
transferring funds. Either the check's source or destination
can cancel the check at any time. After a check has expired,
any account can cancel the check.
Facilities related to checks are on the "Checks" amendment.
* If any of the destructor, copy assignment or copy constructor
are user-declared, both copy members should be user-declared,
otherwise the compiler-generation of them is deprecated.
Introduce "fix1523" which corrects a minor technical flaw with
the original implementation of the escrow feature.
When creating an escrow, the entry would only be tracked in the
owner directory of the sender; as a result, an escrow recipient
would not be able to detect incoming escrows without monitoring
the ledger in real-time for transactions of interest or without
the sender communicating this information out of band.
With the fix in place, escrows where the recipient differs from
the sender will be listed in the recipient's owner directory as
well.
* If the transaction can't be queued, recover to the open ledger once,
and drop it on the next attempt.
* New result codes for transactions that can not queue.
* Add minimum queue size.
* Remove the obsolete and incorrect SF_RETRY flag.
* fix#2215
This commit introduces the "SortedDirectories" amendment, which
addresses two distinct issues:
First, it corrects a technical flaw that could, in some edge cases,
prevent an empty intermediate page from being deleted.
Second, it sorts directory entries within a page (other than order
book page entries, which remain strictly FIFO). This makes insert
operations deterministic, instead of pseudo-random and reliant on
temporal ordering.
Lastly, it removes the ability to perform a "soft delete" where
the page number of the item to delete need not be known if the
item is in the first 20 pages, and enforces a maximum limit to
the number of pages that a directory can span.
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.
Escrow replaces the existing SusPay implementation with improved
code that also adds hashlock support to escrow payments, making
RCL ILP enabled.
The new functionality is under the `Escrow` amendment, which
supersedes and replaces the `SusPay` amendment.
This commit also deprecates the `CryptoConditions` amendment
which is replaced by the `CryptoConditionSuite` amendment which,
once enabled, will allow use of cryptoconditions others than
hashlocks.
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.
