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

rippled v1.1.0 Changes [Waiting for official release] #448

Merged
merged 23 commits into from
Sep 15, 2018

Conversation

mDuo13
Copy link
Collaborator

@mDuo13 mDuo13 commented Aug 21, 2018

Combines the following PRs with changes relating to rippled 1.1.0:

Also adds a couple minor changes:

  • Update Ubuntu instructions to more clearly specify that it requires Boost 1.67.0 exactly (since Boost 1.68.0 is not compatible with rippled 1.1.0)
  • Use master instead of develop for rippled source code links. Update a few line numbers accordingly. (The line numbers for DepositPreauth objects are speculatively set to match what's expected to be merged to master based on the release candidate.)
  • Update the deposit_authorized method's error codes to match deposit_authorized gives error if source not in ledger (#2640) rippled#2642

This PR needs minimal modifications after the rippled 1.1.0 release:

  • Update the build instructions with the version-setting commit for v1.1.0
  • Re-run the link checker to confirm that all the v1.1.0-related links work

mDuo13 and others added 18 commits July 26, 2018 16:50
- consolidated initial install dependencies
- BOOST_ROOT dir will be incorrectly set if your username is not ubuntu
- (Revoved by @mDuo13: automatically setting number of processors to use to compile Boost libraries to half of what users would have)
- git log to now show v1.0.1
- numbering changes
Boost 1.68.0 is not compatible with rippled 1.1.0 due to some changes to
Boost.Beast. Versions of Boost older than 1.67.0 are not compatible with rippled
1.1.0 because they do not include Boost.Beast. Only Boost 1.67.0 is
compatible, so I updated the build instructions to be clearer about
this.
Addresses changes implemented in XRPLF/rippled#2642

- Missing fields result in `invalidParams`
- Accounts not found in the ledger result in `{src/dst}ActNotFound`
@mDuo13
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mDuo13 commented Aug 21, 2018

@jbheron If you could, please peer review just fix-sqlite-tx-db-page-size-issue.md

Copy link
Contributor

@ryangyoung ryangyoung left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The SQLite doc looks great! 👍


`rippled` servers with full transaction history (or a very large amount of transaction history) and a database that was initially created with a `rippled` version earlier than 0.40.0 (released January 2017) may encounter a problem with their SQLite database page size that stops the server from operating properly. Servers that store only recent transaction history (the default configuration) and servers whose database files were created with `rippled` version 0.40.0 and later are not likely to encounter this problem.

This document describes steps to detect and correct this problem if it arises.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

arises --> occurs?


## Background

`rippled` servers store a copy of their transaction history in a SQLite database. Before version 0.40.0, `rippled` configured this database to have a capacity of roughly 2TB. For most uses, this is plenty. However, full transaction history back to ledger 32570 (the oldest ledger version available in the production XRP Ledger history) is likely to exceed this exceed the SQLite database capacity. `rippled` servers version 0.40.0 and later create their SQLite database files with a larger capacity, so they are unlikely to encounter this problem.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ledger 32570 (the oldest ledger version available in the production XRP Ledger history

Might be a good place to link to the explanation of this to your footnote in the consensus intro.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm going to hold off on that for now, because:

  • That content isn't in this branch yet because it's from a PR started after this one. I'd have to rebase onto master.
  • I don't think the link adds much info beyond what's already mentioned in the parenthesis, and it might distract from the task at hand.

Per XRPLF/rippled#2657, the signing commands
should not be used as public methods and this usage is disabled in
rippled v1.1.0 and later.
Update signing command documentation
@mDuo13
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mDuo13 commented Aug 31, 2018

Per XRPLF/rippled#2657, the signing commands should not be used as public methods and this usage is disabled in rippled v1.1.0 and later. The latest commit addresses this:

I left the signing methods in the "public" category for the following reasons:

  • That's where they were before, so it's friendlier to users not to move things if we don't have to. (Technically, the file names won't change so it wouldn't likely break any bookmarks to move them, but still.)
  • They can be used as public methods. (If anything, they belong in both places, but that would be weird, too.)
  • Conceptually, it makes sense for the signing and submitting methods to be grouped together. You can get a sense of the flow for a transaction just by looking at the contents of that category.

@mDuo13 mDuo13 merged commit 4de6422 into XRPLF:master Sep 15, 2018
@mDuo13 mDuo13 deleted the rippled_v110 branch June 14, 2019 20:43
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants