Bugfix: LQT effect hash calculation #5075
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
cronokirby
added
the
consensus-breaking
Previously we were calculating the effect hash over the auth data too (woops!)
cronokirby
force-pushed
the
cronokirby/lqt-effect-hash-bug
branch
from
6d3b677 to
b413ca6
Compare
erwanor
approved these changes
Feb 7, 2025
1 task
conorsch
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 10, 2025
## Describe your changes Bumps the version in the LQT branch. Doing this to disambiguate between active versions, in order to roll out #5075 to the active testnet. ## Issue ticket number and link Refs #5010, #5075. ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > version info only, no code changes
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 14, 2025
## Describe your changes Seems like the effect hash calculation for LQT votes was wrong, in that it erroneously included the authorization data and proof, which would make such actions effectively impossible to construct. This corrects things so that the effect hash is only calculated over the actual body of the vote. Testing deferred. ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > This breaks consensus not only with main, but also with the tentatively applied testnet upgrade 😬
conorsch
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 14, 2025
## Describe your changes Bumps the version in the LQT branch. Doing this to disambiguate between active versions, in order to roll out #5075 to the active testnet. ## Issue ticket number and link Refs #5010, #5075. ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > version info only, no code changes
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Describe your changes
Seems like the effect hash calculation for LQT votes was wrong, in that it erroneously included the authorization data and proof, which would make such actions effectively impossible to construct.
This corrects things so that the effect hash is only calculated over the actual body of the vote.
Testing deferred.
Checklist before requesting a review
I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes.
If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: