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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Bugfix and typofix #4212

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 5, 2020
Merged

Bugfix and typofix #4212

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
da1a122
Typo short-circuit boolean operator
dmos62 Apr 29, 2020
4ec6bac
Fix forgotten break in switch statement
dmos62 Apr 29, 2020
fb76fd6
Fix forgotten break in switch statement
dmos62 Apr 29, 2020
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions core/src/main/java/bisq/core/dao/governance/proposal/param/ChangeParamValidator.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -144,6 +144,7 @@ private void validateBsqValue(Coin currentParamValueAsCoin, Coin inputValueAsCoi
case REIMBURSEMENT_MIN_AMOUNT:
checkArgument(inputValueAsCoin.value >= Restrictions.getMinNonDustOutput().value,
Res.get("validation.amountBelowDust", Restrictions.getMinNonDustOutput().value));
break;
Copy link
Contributor

@ManfredKarrer ManfredKarrer May 5, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think the correct version would be:

            case REIMBURSEMENT_MIN_AMOUNT:
            case COMPENSATION_REQUEST_MAX_AMOUNT:
            case REIMBURSEMENT_MAX_AMOUNT:
                checkArgument(inputValueAsCoin.value >= Restrictions.getMinNonDustOutput().value,
                        Res.get("validation.amountBelowDust", Restrictions.getMinNonDustOutput().value));
                checkArgument(inputValueAsCoin.value <= 200000000,
                        Res.get("validation.inputTooLarge", "200 000 BSQ"));
                break;

Also MinAmount must not exceed the 200 000 BSQ.

case COMPENSATION_REQUEST_MAX_AMOUNT:
case REIMBURSEMENT_MAX_AMOUNT:
checkArgument(inputValueAsCoin.value >= Restrictions.getMinNonDustOutput().value,
Expand Down
7 changes: 4 additions & 3 deletions core/src/main/java/bisq/core/dao/node/parser/TxOutputParser.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -271,12 +271,12 @@ private boolean isBtcOutputOfBurnFeeTx(TempTxOutput tempTxOutput) {

// If it is the vote stake output we return false.
if (index == 0) {
return false;
break;
}

// There must be a vote fee left
if (availableInputValue <= 0) {
return false;
break;
}

// Burned BSQ output is last output before opReturn.
Expand All @@ -285,14 +285,15 @@ private boolean isBtcOutputOfBurnFeeTx(TempTxOutput tempTxOutput) {
// We always have the BSQ change before the burned BSQ output if both are present.
checkArgument(optionalOpReturnIndex.isPresent());
if (index != optionalOpReturnIndex.get() - 1) {
return false;
break;
Copy link
Contributor

@ManfredKarrer ManfredKarrer May 5, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't see any problem with that change but as it is a pure "cosmetic" change I prefer to not touch the code. Some could argue the early return is more readable. I don't have a strong opinion and the break is more consistent but evaluating benefit / risk just does not justify the change IMO even it seems a trivial and very low risk change.

}

// Without checking the fee we would not be able to distinguish between 2 structurally same transactions, one
// where the output is burned BSQ and one where it is a BSQ change output.
long blindVoteFee = daoStateService.getParamValueAsCoin(Param.BLIND_VOTE_FEE, tempTxOutput.getBlockHeight()).value;
return availableInputValue == blindVoteFee;
}
break;
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If the semantic changes in this file are reverted, take care not to revert adding this break.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm doing a revert of the whole PR. There was an easy to use button to do the revert.

Best make a new PR with the good changes.

case VOTE_REVEAL:
break;
case LOCKUP:
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion p2p/src/main/java/bisq/network/p2p/network/Connection.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ public void sendMessage(NetworkEnvelope networkEnvelope) {
protobuf.NetworkEnvelope proto = networkEnvelope.toProtoNetworkEnvelope();
log.trace("Sending message: {}", Utilities.toTruncatedString(proto.toString(), 10000));

if (networkEnvelope instanceof Ping | networkEnvelope instanceof RefreshOfferMessage) {
if (networkEnvelope instanceof Ping || networkEnvelope instanceof RefreshOfferMessage) {
// pings and offer refresh msg we don't want to log in production
log.trace("\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\n" +
"Sending direct message to peer" +
Expand Down