-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
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
Blockchain test fails with seed 1622256150. #315
Comments
A Merit Holder who's expected to have 0 Merit actually has 1 Merit. Forged Merit Holder balances are critical. |
This test apparently had its packet generation commented out at some point and it was left commented, which is somewhat horrific. Reproducible with just 11 rounds instead of 20, roughly halving the time it takes to execute. I also disabled RandomX mining while working on this. Changing Element generation does cause this to not trigger, which makes me wonder if it's related to Dead Merit. |
Off by one error when a Merit Holder was malicious AND had a Merit Removal in a Block their Merit died in. It added back the dead Merit which should've been noted as removed by that same Block. |
Fix causes failures more often; 1622346620 1622346401 have now appeared. The State Revert test also failed with seed 1622347011. |
I'm running the Blockchain test overnight to look for a failure seed with the new fuzzing code. Nothing should've changed so drastically it's infeasible/impossible, yet this test having a failure seed was unknown for months across likely hundreds of runs. So we'll see. I did comment out the mining code once again to go from an ~8 minute execution time to 1 minute. |
Found 1622359295 with the new fuzzing code. It took 75 runs, highlighting its infrequency, As a side note, we should look into not RandomX mining in this test when being run on the CI. It's decently inconsiderate to GitHub and increases our chances of getting removed from their CI for RandomX mining. |
Found thanks to the GitHub CI failing. Given I've never seen this before, I can only assume this is an incredibly rare case. None the less, one which must be handled.
Potentially critical.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: