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

inconsistency in handling redefined types #10

Open
cc32d9 opened this issue Dec 9, 2018 · 1 comment
Open

inconsistency in handling redefined types #10

cc32d9 opened this issue Dec 9, 2018 · 1 comment

Comments

@cc32d9
Copy link
Contributor

cc32d9 commented Dec 9, 2018

On mainnet, mydex1engine has ABI that redefines some standard types:

    },{
      "name": "extended_symbol",
      "base": "",
      "fields": [{
          "name": "sym",
          "type": "symbol"
        },{
          "name": "contract",
          "type": "account_name"
        }
      ]
    },{
      "name": "extended_asset",
      "base": "",
      "fields": [{
          "name": "quantity",
          "type": "asset"
        },{
          "name": "contract",
          "type": "account_name"
        }
      ]
    }

when parsing the binary output from state history plugin, abieos throws an exception:

error: abi redefines type "extended_asset"

So, it needs to be more consistent: either nodeos should reject uploading of such an ABI, or abieos should tolerate and work around this error. Probably both should be done, as this wrong ABI is already carved in history.

@cc32d9
Copy link
Contributor Author

cc32d9 commented Dec 11, 2018

One more issue in mainnet: fastwinitemf is using account_name as a typ0e, and abieos complains about invalid type:

    },{
      "name": "transfer",
      "base": "",
      "fields": [{
          "name": "from",
          "type": "account_name"
        },{
          "name": "to",
          "type": "account_name"
        },{
          "name": "quantity",
          "type": "asset"
        },{
          "name": "memo",
          "type": "string"
        }
      ]
    },{

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

1 participant