-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
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
feature command confusingly reports vetoed: true for retired amendments (Version: 1.8.1) #4014
Comments
Possibly trivial potential solution: change I implemented with Edit: The more I think about it, the less I like this solution. I think the most correct solution is to not show the |
* Prevents the server from ever voting on the given amendment, regardless of operator configuration. * Also prevents the "feature" command from changing the amendment's vote. * Incidentally, resolves XRPLF#4014.
* Prevents the server from ever voting on the given amendment, regardless of operator configuration. * Also prevents the "feature" command from changing the amendment's vote. * Incidentally, resolves XRPLF#4014.
* Prevents the server from ever voting on the given amendment, regardless of operator configuration. * Also prevents the "feature" command from changing the amendment's vote. * Incidentally, resolves XRPLF#4014.
* Prevents the server from ever voting on the given amendment, regardless of operator configuration. * Also prevents the "feature" command from changing the amendment's vote. * Incidentally, resolves XRPLF#4014.
* Prevents the server from ever voting on the given amendment, regardless of operator configuration. * Also prevents the "feature" command from changing the amendment's vote. * Incidentally, resolves XRPLF#4014.
* Prevents the server from ever voting on the given amendment, regardless of operator configuration. * Also prevents the "feature" command from changing the amendment's vote. * Incidentally, resolves XRPLF#4014.
* Prevents the server from ever voting on the given amendment, regardless of operator configuration. * Also prevents the "feature" command from changing the amendment's vote. * Incidentally, resolves XRPLF#4014.
Issue Description
The feature command inaccurately reports a status of
"vetoed": true
for amendments that have had their pre-amendment code retired.Steps to Reproduce
Call the
feature
method with no arguments.Expected Result
The response should show:
"vetoed": false
since that's more likely to be the case for amendments that achieved majority support; or,Actual Result
In addition to explicit vetoes, all retired amendments show
"vetoed": true
which makes it seem like "the validators are revolting against amendments past" (to quote @alloynetworks ).Environment
rippled 1.8.1 confirmed by several UNL validators
Supporting Files
Partial snippet showing the misleading API result:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: