feat: Add Formats and Fields to server_definitions by godexsoft · Pull Request #6321 · XRPLF/rippled

godexsoft · 2026-02-03T18:10:35Z

High Level Overview of Change

Closes #5151
Attempts to implement XRPLF/XRPL-Standards#418

This is a combination of #5702 (bulk of functionality) and #5616 (tests).

If merged:

Issue with tfBatchMask not matching the previous constant is fixed and covered by an extra test in Batch_test.cpp.
Modernized the code where possible, removed incorrect uses of initializer_list where applicable.

Context of Change

Type of Change

Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
Refactor (non-breaking change that only restructures code)
Performance (increase or change in throughput and/or latency)
Tests (you added tests for code that already exists, or your new feature included in this PR)
Documentation update
Chore (no impact to binary, e.g. .gitignore, formatting, dropping support for older tooling)
Release

API Impact

Public API: New feature (new methods and/or new fields)
Public API: Breaking change (in general, breaking changes should only impact the next api_version)
libxrpl change (any change that may affect libxrpl or dependents of libxrpl)
Peer protocol change (must be backward compatible or bump the peer protocol version)

…efinitions2

vvysokikh1 · 2026-02-20T14:27:14Z

src/xrpld/rpc/handlers/ServerDefinitions.cpp

+    auto txCommonFields = std::set<std::string>();
+    for (auto const& element : TxFormats::getCommonFields())
+    {
+        Json::Value elementObj = Json::objectValue;
+        elementObj[jss::name] = element.sField().getName();
+        elementObj[jss::optionality] = element.style();
+        defs_[jss::TRANSACTION_FORMATS][jss::common].append(elementObj);
+        txCommonFields.insert(element.sField().getName());
+    }
+
+    for (auto const& format : TxFormats::getInstance())
+    {
+        auto const& soTemplate = format.getSOTemplate();
+        Json::Value templateArray = Json::arrayValue;
+        for (auto const& element : soTemplate)
+        {
+            if (txCommonFields.count(element.sField().getName()) > 0)
+                continue;  // skip common fields, already added
+            Json::Value elementObj = Json::objectValue;
+            elementObj[jss::name] = element.sField().getName();
+            elementObj[jss::optionality] = element.style();
+            templateArray.append(elementObj);
+        }
+        defs_[jss::TRANSACTION_FORMATS][format.getName()] = templateArray;
+    }
+


just out of curiosity, is there any benefit in inserting common fields first? Will they actually be ordered to be first in the printout in this case? I think we don't need to do any separation at all and just dump all the fields, regardless

in case you decide to leave this behind, txCommonFields.count(element.sField().getName()) > 0 -> txCommonFields.contains(element.sField().getName())

I checked and no it does not make it appear first (it's actually last in the list for both).
I don't think the intention was to have them first or ordered in any specific way, other than for the common fields to land under 'common' instead of injecting them into each format. Will apply your suggestion 👍

The JSON library automatically sorts in alphabetical order

vvysokikh1 · 2026-02-20T14:28:22Z

src/xrpld/rpc/handlers/ServerDefinitions.cpp

+    defs_[jss::LEDGER_ENTRY_FORMATS] = Json::objectValue;
+    defs_[jss::LEDGER_ENTRY_FORMATS][jss::common] = Json::arrayValue;
+    auto ledgerCommonFields = std::set<std::string>();
+    for (auto const& element : LedgerFormats::getCommonFields())
+    {
+        Json::Value elementObj = Json::objectValue;
+        elementObj[jss::name] = element.sField().getName();
+        elementObj[jss::optionality] = element.style();
+        defs_[jss::LEDGER_ENTRY_FORMATS][jss::common].append(elementObj);
+        ledgerCommonFields.insert(element.sField().getName());
+    }
+    for (auto const& format : LedgerFormats::getInstance())
+    {
+        auto const& soTemplate = format.getSOTemplate();
+        Json::Value templateArray = Json::arrayValue;
+        for (auto const& element : soTemplate)
+        {
+            if (ledgerCommonFields.count(element.sField().getName()) > 0)
+                continue;  // skip common fields, already added
+            Json::Value elementObj = Json::objectValue;
+            elementObj[jss::name] = element.sField().getName();
+            elementObj[jss::optionality] = element.style();
+            templateArray.append(elementObj);
+        }
+        defs_[jss::LEDGER_ENTRY_FORMATS][format.getName()] = templateArray;
+    }
+


same q here

ximinez

This is marked as "Ready to merge", but it's not clear to me that all of @mvadari's questions have been addressed.

In addition, I took a skim through the PR, and noticed a couple of possible improvements.

src/libxrpl/tx/transactors/MPT/MPTokenIssuanceDestroy.cpp

src/test/app/Batch_test.cpp

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 29 out of 29 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot · 2026-03-02T21:45:55Z

include/xrpl/protocol/LedgerFormats.h

-          various purposes, but attempting to use such values to identify
-          on-ledger objects will results in an invariant failure.
+    @note Values outside this range may be used internally by the code for various purposes, but
+   attempting to use such values to identify on-ledger objects will results in an invariant failure.


In this doc comment, the phrase "will results in an invariant failure" is grammatically incorrect (should be "will result"). Please fix to avoid propagating typos into generated docs and developer references.

Suggested change

attempting to use such values to identify on-ledger objects will results in an invariant failure.

attempting to use such values to identify on-ledger objects will result in an invariant failure.

Copilot · 2026-03-02T21:45:56Z

src/test/rpc/ServerDefinitions_test.cpp

+            {
+                BEAST_EXPECT(result[jss::result].isMember(jss::LEDGER_ENTRY_FORMATS));
+
+                // Note: For the purposes of software maintainance, this test does not exhaustively


Typo in comment: "maintainance" should be "maintenance".

Suggested change

// Note: For the purposes of software maintainance, this test does not exhaustively

// Note: For the purposes of software maintenance, this test does not exhaustively

Copilot · 2026-03-02T21:45:56Z

API-CHANGELOG.md

+## XRP Ledger server version 3.2.0
+
+[Version 3.2.0](https://github.com/XRPLF/rippled/releases/tag/3.2.0)
+
+### Additions in 3.2.0
+
+- `server_definitions`: Added the following new sections to the response ([#6321](https://github.com/XRPLF/rippled/pull/6321)):


This new changelog entry for "XRP Ledger server version 3.2.0" doesn’t include a release date, while the surrounding entries do. Please either add the release date (if known) or adjust the heading/link text to match the established format used in this file for unreleased/new versions.

ximinez

All of my concerns have been addressed, though Copilot identified a couple of things.

I haven't done a deep review, so I'm just going to dismiss this approval. There are plenty of other approvals to proceed with.

mvadari and others added 30 commits August 16, 2025 13:33

first stab

e736965

move server_definitions to new file

c91afc0

move AccountSet to app

491c6ec

[WIP] flags

acac1c9

finish flags

97a2912

clean up

945c5fd

add universal flags

7c4d63b

split out common fields

34fdea9

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/develop' into server_definitions2

a8b0043

fix flags

cbecdb2

fix flags

38a29ab

Merge branch 'develop' into server_definitions2

034198e

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/develop' into server_definitions2

fa0d5a6

Merge branch 'develop' into server_definitions2

09ec4ef

Merge branch 'develop' into server_definitions2

85b015b

Merge branch 'develop' into server_definitions2

b84a348

add lsf flags

edb04af

Merge branch 'develop' into server_definitions2

7a4d423

Merge branch 'develop' into server_definitions2

3e1661b

Merge branch 'develop' into server_definitions2

b51292b

Merge branch 'develop' into server_definitions2

e5d6f02

match spec

de9777d

Merge branch 'develop' into server_definitions2

cf9b68c

fix build issue

7753f93

Merge branch 'develop' into server_definitions2

7e7f497

Merge branch 'develop' into server_definitions2

571950d

Merge branch 'develop' into server_definitions2

a2c0fdc

Merge branch 'develop' into server_definitions2

1e4596d

Merge commit '92046785d1fea5f9efe5a770d636792ea6cab78b' into server_d…

70ff709

…efinitions2

Merge branch 'develop' into server_definitions2

498d533

vvysokikh1 mentioned this pull request Feb 19, 2026

server_definitions should include DeliverMax #5506

Open

vvysokikh1 approved these changes Feb 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

godexsoft added 2 commits February 20, 2026 14:44

Fix suggestion from review

d3fe934

Merge develop

88e9ff9

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings February 20, 2026 15:19

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of godexsoft February 20, 2026 15:20 View session

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

Fix ODR violation and SIOF

7c392be

godexsoft self-assigned this Feb 22, 2026

godexsoft added the Ready to merge *PR author* thinks it's ready to merge. Has passed code review. Perf sign-off may still be required. label Feb 22, 2026

mvadari mentioned this pull request Feb 24, 2026

feat: add more fields to server_definitions #5702

Closed

13 tasks

Merge branch 'develop' into feature/flags-server-definitions

bdd534a

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings February 25, 2026 00:10

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of ximinez February 25, 2026 00:10 View session

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

ximinez requested changes Feb 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/libxrpl/tx/transactors/MPT/MPTokenIssuanceDestroy.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/test/app/Batch_test.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

ximinez removed the Ready to merge *PR author* thinks it's ready to merge. Has passed code review. Perf sign-off may still be required. label Feb 25, 2026

mvadari added the Blocked: Needs Final XLS The corresponding final XLS must have been merged before this PR is merged. label Feb 25, 2026

Fix review comments

655cfd3

godexsoft requested review from mvadari and ximinez February 26, 2026 19:16

godexsoft added Ready to merge *PR author* thinks it's ready to merge. Has passed code review. Perf sign-off may still be required. and removed Blocked: Needs Final XLS The corresponding final XLS must have been merged before this PR is merged. labels Mar 2, 2026

Add note about reflection

80afdd9

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings March 2, 2026 21:38

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of godexsoft March 2, 2026 21:39 View session

mvadari approved these changes Mar 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

Copilot AI reviewed Mar 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

ximinez previously approved these changes Mar 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

	attempting to use such values to identify on-ledger objects will results in an invariant failure.
	attempting to use such values to identify on-ledger objects will result in an invariant failure.

	// Note: For the purposes of software maintainance, this test does not exhaustively
	// Note: For the purposes of software maintenance, this test does not exhaustively

Conversation

godexsoft commented Feb 3, 2026 • edited by ximinez Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

High Level Overview of Change

Context of Change

Type of Change

API Impact

Uh oh!

vvysokikh1 Feb 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

vvysokikh1 Feb 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

godexsoft Feb 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mvadari Feb 20, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

vvysokikh1 Feb 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as resolved.

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as resolved.

Uh oh!

ximinez left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ximinez left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

godexsoft commented Feb 3, 2026 •

edited by ximinez

Loading

mvadari Feb 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading

ximinez left a comment •

edited

Loading