-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 389
fix(bitcoind_rpc): fix filter iter may not handle reorgs properly #1909
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
Open
Musab1258
wants to merge
3
commits into
bitcoindevkit:master
Choose a base branch
from
Musab1258:fix/FilterIter-may-not-handle-reorgs-properly
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Don't we need to compare this with the previous header returned? Otherwise how can we detect reorgs between separate calls to
next
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @evanlinjin, Thanks for the review. I think the code addresses your concern about detecting reorgs between calls to
next
.When
next()
finishes, it updatesself.height
on line 177 to the next height it expects to process. It also stores the hash and match status for the block it just processed inself.blocks
on line 175self.insert_block(height, hash);)
. And it persists both of self.height and self.blocks until the next call to next().What was done on line 155 and line 156 is that the height and hash variables were initialized with the values of
self.height
(which is the height we expect to process next) andself.client.get_block_hash(height as _)
(which is its hash)Then, the code from lines 157 to 166 gets the header of the current block
let header = self.client.get_block_header(&hash)?;
, calculates the height of the assumed parent's blocklet prev_height = height.saturating_sub(1);
, retrieves the hash of the assumed parent through its height, and compares it to the prev_blockhash field from the current block's header. If they match, then the chain is consistent, and if they don't, a reorg has occured.