Locking channel accounts to transactions #116
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Instead of locking channel accounts for an arbitrary amount of time, lock them for the same amount of time as the transaction time bounds and also explicitly lock them to transactions, unlocking them in the webhook channel
JakeUrban
reviewed
Jan 27, 2025
internal/db/migrations/2025-01-22.0-add_locked_tx_hash_to_channel_accounts.sql
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Comment on lines
46
to
55
| func (sc *channelAccountDBSignatureClient) GetAccountPublicKey(ctx context.Context, opts ...int) (string, error) { | ||
| var lockedUntil time.Duration | ||
| if len(opts) > 0 { | ||
| lockedUntil = time.Duration(opts[0]) * time.Second | ||
| } else { | ||
| lockedUntil = time.Minute | ||
| } | ||
| for range store.ChannelAccountWaitTime { | ||
| channelAccount, err := sc.channelAccountStore.GetIdleChannelAccount(ctx, time.Minute) | ||
| // check to see if the variadic parameter for time exists and if so, use it here | ||
| channelAccount, err := sc.channelAccountStore.GetIdleChannelAccount(ctx, lockedUntil) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why does this function accept multiple integers? I only see the first one used
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wanted to pass in the time for which to lock a channel account as an optional argument, so that not every signature client has to pass it in, which is why I made it a variadic function
| @@ -29,20 +29,20 @@ func (ca *ChannelAccountModel) GetIdleChannelAccount(ctx context.Context, locked | |||
| query := fmt.Sprintf(` | |||
| UPDATE channel_accounts | |||
| SET | |||
| locked_tx_hash = NULL, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is unnecessary since UnlockChannelAccountFromTx() sets this to null
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That is true in theory, but in case the channel accounts do not get unlocked (they fail to reach the webhook for example), this will act as a fail safe, which is why I added it in there
|
resolves #102 |
aditya1702
reviewed
Jan 31, 2025
aditya1702
reviewed
Feb 10, 2025
aditya1702
approved these changes
Feb 11, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What
Instead of locking channel accounts for an arbitrary amount of time like we are currently doing, lock them for the same amount of time as the transaction time bounds and also explicitly lock them to transactions (when the transaction is being built), opportunistically unlocking them from their transactions in the webhook channel
Why
If the channel account is specified as the source of a transaction that hasn't been accepted by the network yet, and the same channel account is "unlocked" and then used as the source for a different transaction that gets accepted by the network prior to the original, the original transaction is invalidated. We want to avoid this behavior
Known limitations
N/A
Issue that this PR addresses
https://github.com/orgs/stellar/projects/58/views/2?pane=issue&itemId=92871835&issue=stellar%7Cwallet-backend%7C102
Checklist
PR Structure
allif the changes are broad or impact many packages.Thoroughness
Release