Skip to content
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.

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

Not enough information for invalid TX Types for unsupported forks #1826

Closed
lolchocotaco opened this issue Aug 17, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by #1954
Closed

Not enough information for invalid TX Types for unsupported forks #1826

lolchocotaco opened this issue Aug 17, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by #1954
Assignees
Labels
in the pipeline Logged into our issue tracking pipeline

Comments

@lolchocotaco
Copy link
Contributor

lolchocotaco commented Aug 17, 2023

Not enough information for invalid TX Types for unsupported forks

Description

Not enough context is given about the TX if a user submits an EIP1559 txn to a chain not supporting EIP1559.

Steps to reproduce

  • Start an edge instance without EIP1559 enabled (Do not specify a burn contract)
  • Submit a MM txn to the edge chain (defaults to eip1559)

Relevant Genesis Config Values:

{ 
...
    "burnContract": null,
    "burnContractDestinationAddress": "0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000"
}

Expected behavior

A detailed error on what about the TX is invalid and instead we get "Invalid TX Type"
telegram-cloud-photo-size-5-6260395836353656972-y

Proposed solution

Provide more verbose reasoning to why TXNs were rejected from the pool within these code blocks. Should also set a standard for any additional forks.
https://github.com/0xPolygon/polygon-edge/blob/develop/txpool/txpool.go#L617-L621

geth example:
https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/blob/1aa5520d750147cabcb39030ac86bf31088c767f/core/txpool/validation.go#L63-L65

@Stefan-Ethernal Stefan-Ethernal added the in the pipeline Logged into our issue tracking pipeline label Sep 18, 2023
@jelacamarko jelacamarko linked a pull request Oct 4, 2023 that will close this issue
11 tasks
@goran-ethernal
Copy link
Collaborator

This will be merged soon, so I am closing this. Reference PR: #1954

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
in the pipeline Logged into our issue tracking pipeline
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants