Upgrade [email protected]

[psavva]

@dangershony @sondreb

I am unable to understand why the Fork is not be rewinded, and why Block 10 still appears in the fork.

Please review the changes, and see if this is something we can fix, or if we leave LiteDB at the current version.
Please note that there are vulenrabilities reported on LiteDB, and this version i've picked is the first version that seems the most stable (most tests pass on BlocCore), when compared to any later version. There are bugs with Transactions in LiteDB which must be resolved prior to any further upgrades of the library.

Failed Tests:

 CanIndexAddresses
   Source: AddressIndexerTests.cs line 72
   Duration: 6.2 sec

  Message: 
Assert.Equal() Failure: Values differ
Expected: 70000
Actual:   60000

  Stack Trace: 
AddressIndexerTests.CanIndexAddresses() line 159
RuntimeMethodHandle.InvokeMethod(Object target, Void** arguments, Signature sig, Boolean isConstructor)
MethodBaseInvoker.InvokeWithNoArgs(Object obj, BindingFlags invokeAttr)

[psavva]

Using LiteDb.Studio, i'm able to look at the data actually stored.

Using LiteDb v4, We have AddrTipData:

{
  "_id": 1,
  "TipHashBytes": {"$binary": "+rRrS+OLFLVKtHETRTCaUKKKz8mUNLKMYEPwz3fV4vk="},
  "Height": 8
}

Using LiteDB v4, We have AddrTipData:

{
  "_id": 1,
  "TipHashBytes": {"$binary": "AANXLRfJNePV3/NQhL5Nj9AEfMMYSGCvj8jNChpB0Zg="},
  "Height": 108
}

All other tables have got the exact same data, only discrepancy is the AddrTipData table, which is at Height 108 v5 vs Height 8 on v4

[psavva]

Using LiteDb.Studio, i'm able to look at the data actually stored.

Using LiteDb v4, We have AddrTipData:

{
  "_id": 1,
  "TipHashBytes": {"$binary": "+rRrS+OLFLVKtHETRTCaUKKKz8mUNLKMYEPwz3fV4vk="},
  "Height": 8
}

Using LiteDB v4, We have AddrTipData:

{
  "_id": 1,
  "TipHashBytes": {"$binary": "AANXLRfJNePV3/NQhL5Nj9AEfMMYSGCvj8jNChpB0Zg="},
  "Height": 108
}

All other tables have got the exact same data, only discrepancy is the AddrTipData table, which is at Height 108 v5 vs Height 8 on v4

This is now fixed with the 3rd commit

[dangershony]

I am confused the data was incorrect? What does this comment fix?

[psavva]

I am confused the data was incorrect? What does this comment fix?

16183d5

This one is the fix for the comment above.

I'm just stating that it's resolved

[dangershony]

Ah right did we not commit this yet?
I think I was waiting for @sondreb to also approve

[psavva]

It's committed :)

…

On Sun, Apr 7, 2024, 12:08 Dan Gershony ***@***.***> wrote: Ah right did we not commit this yet? I think I was waiting for @sondreb <https://github.com/sondreb> to also approve — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#451 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AALDFJSGLNUIJEDRBWKOEU3Y4EEIFAVCNFSM6AAAAABEWUT62WVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDANBRGM3TSMJVHE> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[sondreb]

I'll approve and verify with the other updated packages. I assume the rewind issue was fixed.