Previously, the object `account_data` in the `account_info` response
contained a single field `Flags` that contains flags of an account. API
consumers must perform bitwise operations on this field to retrieve the
account flags.
This change adds a new object, `account_flags`, at the top level of the
`account_info` response `result`. The object contains relevant flags of
the account. This makes it easier to write simple code to check a flag's
value.
The flags included may depend on the amendments that are enabled.
Fix#2457.
* Create the FeeSettings object in genesis ledger.
* Initialize with default values from the config. Removes the need to
pass a Config down into the Ledger initialization functions, including
setup().
* Drop the undocumented fee config settings in favor of the [voting]
section.
* Fix#3734.
* If you previously used fee_account_reserve and/or fee_owner_reserve,
you should change to using the [voting] section instead. Example:
```
[voting]
account_reserve=10000000
owner_reserve=2000000
```
* Because old Mainnet ledgers (prior to 562177 - yes, I looked it up)
don't have FeeSettings, some of the other ctors will default them to
the config values before setup() tries to load the object.
* Update default Config fee values to match Mainnet.
* Fix unit tests:
* Updated fees: Some tests are converted to use computed values of fee
object, but the default Env config was also updated to fix the rest.
* Unit tests that check the structure of the ledger have updated
hashes and counts.
Add the ability to mark amendments as obsolete. There are some known
amendments that should not be voted for because they are broken (or
similar reasons).
This commit marks four amendments as obsolete:
1. `CryptoConditionsSuite`
2. `NonFungibleTokensV1`
3. `fixNFTokenDirV1`
4. `fixNFTokenNegOffer`
When an amendment is `Obsolete`, voting for the amendment is prevented.
A determined operator can still vote for the amendment by changing the
source, and doing so does not break any protocol rules.
The "feature" command now does not modify the vote for obsolete
amendments.
Before this change, there were two options for an amendment's
`DefaultVote` behavior: yes and no.
After this change, there are three options for an amendment's
`VoteBehavior`: DefaultYes, DefaultNo, and Obsolete.
To be clear, if an obsolete amendment were to (somehow) be activated by
consensus, the server still has the code to process transactions
according to that amendment, and would not be amendment blocked. It
would function the same as if it had been voting "no" on the amendment.
Resolves#4014.
Incorporates review feedback from @scottschurr.
Without the protocol amendment introduced by this commit, an NFT ID can
be reminted in this manner:
1. Alice creates an account and mints an NFT.
2. Alice burns the NFT with an `NFTokenBurn` transaction.
3. Alice deletes her account with an `AccountDelete` transaction.
4. Alice re-creates her account.
5. Alice mints an NFT with an `NFTokenMint` transaction with params:
`NFTokenTaxon` = 0, `Flags` = 9).
This will mint a NFT with the same `NFTokenID` as the one minted in step
1. The params that construct the NFT ID will cause a collision in
`NFTokenID` if their values are equal before and after the remint.
With the `fixNFTokenRemint` amendment, there is a new sequence number
construct which avoids this scenario:
- A new `AccountRoot` field, `FirstNFTSequence`, stays constant over
time.
- This field is set to the current account sequence when the account
issues their first NFT.
- Otherwise, it is not set.
- The sequence of a newly-minted NFT is computed by: `FirstNFTSequence +
MintedNFTokens`.
- `MintedNFTokens` is then incremented by 1 for each mint.
Furthermore, there is a new account deletion restriction:
- An account can only be deleted if `FirstNFTSequence + MintedNFTokens +
256` is less than the current ledger sequence.
- 256 was chosen because it already exists in the current account
deletion constraint.
Without this restriction, an NFT may still be remintable. Example
scenario:
1. Alice's account sequence is at 1.
2. Bob is Alice's authorized minter.
3. Bob mints 500 NFTs for Alice. The NFTs will have sequences 1-501, as
NFT sequence is computed by `FirstNFTokenSequence + MintedNFTokens`).
4. Alice deletes her account at ledger 257 (as required by the existing
`AccountDelete` amendment).
5. Alice re-creates her account at ledger 258.
6. Alice mints an NFT. `FirstNFTokenSequence` initializes to her account
sequence (258), and `MintedNFTokens` initializes as 0. This
newly-minted NFT would have a sequence number of 258, which is a
duplicate of what she issued through authorized minting before she
deleted her account.
---------
Signed-off-by: Shawn Xie <shawnxie920@gmail.com>
- Implement the `operator==` and the `operator<=>` (aka the spaceship
operator) in `base_uint`, `Issue`, and `Book`.
- C++20-compliant compilers automatically provide the remaining
comparison operators (e.g. `operator<`, `operator<=`, ...).
- Remove the function compare() because it is no longer needed.
- Maintain the same semantics as the existing code.
- Add some unit tests to gain further confidence.
- Fix#2525.
