You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
<p><ahref='room_log.txt'>⇩ plaintext</a> · <ahref='../../'>⇦ all rooms</a></p>
23
23
<hr>
24
24
<divclass='msg'><aclass='ts' href='#$_9hLINsChVG8rufQkmbqp-fIbsNyK1YqpS3C9S7QZHU'>#</a><aclass='ts' name='$_9hLINsChVG8rufQkmbqp-fIbsNyK1YqpS3C9S7QZHU' href='https://matrix.to/#/!ksYpYHcVftKsUAsdMa:matrix.org/$_9hLINsChVG8rufQkmbqp-fIbsNyK1YqpS3C9S7QZHU' target='_blank'>2025-08-20 15:56</a> <spanclass='u' style='color:#787fdf'>erin</span>: tomusdrw: i've set up the archiver to archive this also, so hopefully will be up starting tomorrow</div>
any team tried <code>1766565819_4872</code> locally? could you please recheck davxy ? </div>
1675
1675
<divclass='msg reply'><aclass='ts' href='#$xRlu76x7ZJRTNfgoqV0C_8Y33rGk2Dbb7LPO1O6iKiQ'>#</a><aclass='ts' name='$xRlu76x7ZJRTNfgoqV0C_8Y33rGk2Dbb7LPO1O6iKiQ' href='https://matrix.to/#/!ksYpYHcVftKsUAsdMa:matrix.org/$xRlu76x7ZJRTNfgoqV0C_8Y33rGk2Dbb7LPO1O6iKiQ' target='_blank'>2026-01-04 11:48</a> <spanclass='u' style='color:#788ad5'>yu2c</span>: We tested spacejam fuzzer + our target, and both cases report invalid extrinsic hash for 00000040 and 00000041.
1676
1676
However, when using our own fuzzer + the same target, we are able to reproduce the exact extrinsic hash as recorded in the block header.</div>
1677
+
<divclass='msg reply'><aclass='ts' href='#$ofyTQMUY87Ucgnu449D0Qh1mEqvY4mNTazurPAHSIgY'>#</a><aclass='ts' name='$ofyTQMUY87Ucgnu449D0Qh1mEqvY4mNTazurPAHSIgY' href='https://matrix.to/#/!ksYpYHcVftKsUAsdMa:matrix.org/$ofyTQMUY87Ucgnu449D0Qh1mEqvY4mNTazurPAHSIgY' target='_blank'>2026-01-06 12:21</a> <spanclass='u' style='color:#be2950'>clearloop</span>: out fuzzer is affected since we failed to decode the JSON > \< <spanclass="edited">(edited)</span></div>
<divclass='msg reply'><aclass='ts' href='#$bPKvz2_WC3kWxRGQi-zegeeMUyDBYCYd9nzgP5jovzQ'>#</a><aclass='ts' name='$bPKvz2_WC3kWxRGQi-zegeeMUyDBYCYd9nzgP5jovzQ' href='https://matrix.to/#/!ksYpYHcVftKsUAsdMa:matrix.org/$bPKvz2_WC3kWxRGQi-zegeeMUyDBYCYd9nzgP5jovzQ' target='_blank'>2026-01-04 14:33</a> <spanclass='u' style='color:#d470bf'>jaymansfield</span>: 39/41 pass. I reject 40 for duplicate core indexes in guarantees.</div>
1687
1688
<divclass='msg reply'><aclass='ts' href='#$-O3hl3Rjj3Z6HCUVo0n2Tktv5wLJA0x9HjCdHUgMPjQ'>#</a><aclass='ts' name='$-O3hl3Rjj3Z6HCUVo0n2Tktv5wLJA0x9HjCdHUgMPjQ' href='https://matrix.to/#/!ksYpYHcVftKsUAsdMa:matrix.org/$-O3hl3Rjj3Z6HCUVo0n2Tktv5wLJA0x9HjCdHUgMPjQ' target='_blank'>2026-01-04 15:36</a> <spanclass='u' style='color:#bfaf39'>dakkk</span>: I tested again on jampy, block 39 is ok, block 40 is rejected for invalid guarantee order, and block 41 is ok; the trace for block 40 has the same pre and post state root, so rejected the block is correct</div>
1688
1689
<divclass='msg reply'><aclass='ts' href='#$dCA9sUTbkaXDCQT5bWCifWBVl0GAG68T2iT-1hbbvqQ'>#</a><aclass='ts' name='$dCA9sUTbkaXDCQT5bWCifWBVl0GAG68T2iT-1hbbvqQ' href='https://matrix.to/#/!ksYpYHcVftKsUAsdMa:matrix.org/$dCA9sUTbkaXDCQT5bWCifWBVl0GAG68T2iT-1hbbvqQ' target='_blank'>2026-01-05 16:06</a> <spanclass='u' style='color:#be2950'>clearloop</span>: Thanks! so likely I got some problems in our implementations, I thought the ex hash check is conflict with other tests</div>
1690
+
<divclass='msg reply'><aclass='ts' href='#$DeA5SNepFAVJZl-8HAVvJup2STe4_O59YGK5wu-aZyo'>#</a><aclass='ts' name='$DeA5SNepFAVJZl-8HAVvJup2STe4_O59YGK5wu-aZyo' href='https://matrix.to/#/!ksYpYHcVftKsUAsdMa:matrix.org/$DeA5SNepFAVJZl-8HAVvJup2STe4_O59YGK5wu-aZyo' target='_blank'>2026-01-06 11:40</a> <spanclass='u' style='color:#be2950'>clearloop</span>: we were doing json decoding for our local tests that we failed to decode the <code>output_oversize</code> result which caused us failed to validate the signature for block <code>41</code>
> any team tried `1766565819_4872` locally? could you please recheck davxy ?
@@ -1691,3 +1692,5 @@ I will check this afternoon on jampy 👍
1691
1692
↳ 2026-01-04 14:33 jaymansfield: 39/41 pass. I reject 40 for duplicate core indexes in guarantees.
1692
1693
↳ 2026-01-04 15:36 dakkk: I tested again on jampy, block 39 is ok, block 40 is rejected for invalid guarantee order, and block 41 is ok; the trace for block 40 has the same pre and post state root, so rejected the block is correct
1693
1694
↳ 2026-01-05 16:06 clearloop: Thanks! so likely I got some problems in our implementations, I thought the ex hash check is conflict with other tests
1695
+
↳ 2026-01-06 11:40 clearloop: we were doing json decoding for our local tests that we failed to decode the `output_oversize` result which caused us failed to validate the signature for block `41`
0 commit comments