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

stellar-archivist shows duplicated data when reading an archive file #374

Closed
Ronserruya opened this issue Mar 25, 2018 · 2 comments
Closed

Comments

@Ronserruya
Copy link

Ronserruya commented Mar 25, 2018

When using the "dumpxdr" command of stellar-archivist, it sometimes shows duplicated data in a place where it shouldn't be.

results-006bc07f.txt
For example, working on the file: results-006bc07f.xdr, taken from S3:
history.stellar.org/prd/core-testnet/core_testnet_001/results/00/6b/c0/results-006bc07f

Some of the transaction ids are duplicated and are in the wrong ledgers.

The transaction hash [93, 239, 45, 233, 97, 76, 223, 52, 226, 88, 7, 30, 244, 36, 148, 216, 53, 202, 46, 157, 111, 190, 191, 205, 135, 221, 119, 148, 248, 209, 78, 72] Or , 5def2de9614cdf34e258071ef42494d835ca2e9d6fbebfcd87dd7794f8d14e48
Appears multiple times across many ledgers in the file, even though it should only be in ledge 7061569 (according to horizon)

@Ronserruya
Copy link
Author

Wrote something small in python to read this file, and it confirmed that archivist did read the file wrong, this is the python file:
parseXDR.txt

and the results:
results.txt

You can see that the hash that was specified in the original issue only appears once and in the correct ledger.
I would just want to confirm that this is an actual bug with archivist and not some misunderstanding that I have on how these XDR files work

@bartekn
Copy link
Contributor

bartekn commented Sep 17, 2018

Released Archivist 0.2.0 with a fix. Big thanks to @nebolsin for finding and fixing a bug!

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants