fix: Implement correct balance updating logic #1745
Conversation
JonathanOppenheimer
added
enhancement
Co-authored-by: Austin Larson <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Oppenheimer <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Austin Larson <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Oppenheimer <[email protected]>
stateupgrade/state_upgrade.go
Outdated
| errBalanceOverflow, account.Hex(), currentBalance.ToBig().String(), balanceChange.ToBig().String()) | ||
| } | ||
| state.AddBalance(account, balanceChange) | ||
| case -1: // Negative |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should not allow negative values. Can we check this in the verification and return an error if it's negative?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why shouldn't we allow negative values? I assume there are users who would like to subtract from some account's balance.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(we should probably add these tests to verification)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what do you mean by we should add these tests to verification?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's ugly to have this in this package and then have the definition in config/extras package. I'm working on a refactor to move them to here https://github.com/ava-labs/subnet-evm/pull/1811/files (this is not a blocker for this one)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Got it! If you'd like it to be a blocker, this PR can certainly wait until after that one (and perhaps that makes more sense).
3 participants
Why this should be merged
Previously
upgradeAccountwould naively assume that anyupgrade.BalanceChangewas positive, even though the underlying BalanceChange was aBig.Int, which can be negative. This meant that negative balance updates would be interpreted as positive updates, which is strange, and arguably incorrect behavior. This PR correctly implements the balance changing behavior, and adds checks to ensure account balances are not updated to non-sensical values. Closes #1717How this was tested
I added a new test file,
state_upgrade_test.go.This behavior was seemingly not tested prior.Need to be documented?
I don't think so - we are not exposing any additional API methods, we're just fixing an existing one.
Need to update RELEASES.md?
No