-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
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
Wallet.CalculateNetworkFee calculating incorrect NetworkFee #2388
Comments
@neo-project/ngd-shanghai Please check it. |
Investigating. |
@devhawk which kind of verification script? |
@devhawk What's the relationship between wallet and devwallet? I guess it's a signer difference which cause the netfee mismatch. |
@devhawk Could you give more detail on how this transaction looks like? CurrentWallet
devWallet
Scenario 1: sender and signer belongs to different wallet.open wallet CurrentWallet, deploy contract with sender=NeGfNoazya5E6gM6DBahiRnhnAn3sMrYRV signer=NT2EJfdipEc5ifwksZH2QynVHgShmV7b2j.
Scenario 2: sender and signer belongs to the same wallet.open wallet CurrentWallet, deploy contract with sender=NeGfNoazya5E6gM6DBahiRnhnAn3sMrYRV signer=NT2EJfdipEc5ifwksZH2QynVHgShmV7b2j.
|
@superboyiii : ExpressWallet/ExpressWalletAccount are simple models types for JSON serialization. DevWallet/DevWalletAccount are subclasses of Wallet/WalletAccount for use in Neo Express - for example, DevWallet/Account don't password protect private keys. There is no signing code in DevWallet that isn't inherited from Wallet |
Note, I think the problem is that CreateMultiSigRedeemScript and CreateSignatureRedeemScript have changed since preview 5, so my old neo express files are invalid |
Close? |
Attempting to deploy contract via neo-express is failing validation due to insufficient NetworkFee. Wallet.CalculateNetworkFee appears to be calculating the network fee incorrectly. In the scenario below, the CalculateNetworkFee calculates the fee at 1627000 but verification fails because network fee should be 1736000
This seems like an important fix for RC1 #2329
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: