Pages:
Author

Topic: Armory 0.93 testing release! (with 0.05 BTC bug bounty) - page 4. (Read 35695 times)

hero member
Activity: 1358
Merit: 635
One more question. Say I will forget about Armory and use  pure Bitcoin-Qt instead as my wallet. Will I be able to import my Armary wallet into Bitcoin-Qt sa thatI my bts were safe? And what wallet should I import  online or offline? All my btc are in off-line Armory wallet

No, the two are very different. But you always can make transactions from the old Armory to a new Bitcoin Core wallet.

Thanks for clarification. I am just starting to be affraid of Armory as it becomes so buggy with new releases. Developers should not expose them to the public untill all bugs were fixed. IMHO
legendary
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1001
https://gliph.me/hUF
One more question. Say I will forget about Armory and use  pure Bitcoin-Qt instead as my wallet. Will I be able to import my Armary wallet into Bitcoin-Qt sa thatI my bts were safe? And what wallet should I import  online or offline? All my btc are in off-line Armory wallet

No, the two are very different. But you always can make transactions from the old Armory to a new Bitcoin Core wallet.
hero member
Activity: 1358
Merit: 635
One more question. Say I will forget about Armory and use  pure Bitcoin-Qt instead as my wallet. Will I be able to import my Armary wallet into Bitcoin-Qt sa thatI my bts were safe? And what wallet should I import  online or offline? All my btc are in off-line Armory wallet
legendary
Activity: 3738
Merit: 1360
Armory Developer
Download 0.93 for Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8+ (32- and 64-bit)  - this is what Download page on Armory official site states. So they  claim that 0.93 is 32-bit compatable  Huh

More like we forgot to relabel the link properly.
hero member
Activity: 1358
Merit: 635
I'm afraid it's all true! ArmoryQt.exe isn't a valid Win32 application, and that's a problem with your offline XP machine as it appears to be 32-bit windows. Armory 0.93.0 is all 64-bit. I think goatpig may have promised a 32-bit Windows build of 0.93.next-sub-version. If not, 92.3 still uses the same format for signatures, so you'll be OK no matter what.

I have promised that, that's true. I hope to still make it happen but I can give no guarantee the x86 build will run on XP. The current version will build in x86 btw, if you are brave enough to setup the Windows build env (I should write a howto)


Download 0.93 for Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8+ (32- and 64-bit)  - this is what Download page on Armory official site states. So they  claim that 0.93 is 32-bit compatable  Huh
legendary
Activity: 3738
Merit: 1360
Armory Developer
I'm afraid it's all true! ArmoryQt.exe isn't a valid Win32 application, and that's a problem with your offline XP machine as it appears to be 32-bit windows. Armory 0.93.0 is all 64-bit. I think goatpig may have promised a 32-bit Windows build of 0.93.next-sub-version. If not, 92.3 still uses the same format for signatures, so you'll be OK no matter what.

I have promised that, that's true. I hope to still make it happen but I can give no guarantee the x86 build will run on XP. The current version will build in x86 btw, if you are brave enough to setup the Windows build env (I should write a howto)
legendary
Activity: 3738
Merit: 1360
Armory Developer
After instalation  and launch of 0.93 on Win XP got "C:/......./ArmoryQt.exe is not valid Win32 application"   Huh

Need to roll back to 0.92.3

Will my  0.93 on-line Armory/Win 7 properly communicate with 0.92.3/ Win XP used as offline ?

Yes, 0.92.x can manage wallets and sign transactions created from 0.93
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3079
After instalation  and launch of 0.93 on Win XP got "C:/......./ArmoryQt.exe is not valid Win32 application"   Huh

Need to roll back to 0.92.3

Will my  0.93 on-line Armory/Win 7 properly communicate with 0.92.3/ Win XP used as offline ?

I'm afraid it's all true! ArmoryQt.exe isn't a valid Win32 application, and that's a problem with your offline XP machine as it appears to be 32-bit windows. Armory 0.93.0 is all 64-bit. I think goatpig may have promised a 32-bit Windows build of 0.93.next-sub-version. If not, 92.3 still uses the same format for signatures, so you'll be OK no matter what.
hero member
Activity: 1358
Merit: 635
After instalation  and launch of 0.93 on Win XP got "C:/......./ArmoryQt.exe is not valid Win32 application"   Huh

Need to roll back to 0.92.3

Will my  0.93 on-line Armory/Win 7 properly communicate with 0.92.3/ Win XP used as offline ?
legendary
Activity: 3738
Merit: 1360
Armory Developer
This appears in the log every time it encounters a new block:
Code:
-ERROR - 1425181756: (..\StoredBlockObj.cpp:1863) We should've found an unpsent txio in the subSSH but didn't
-ERROR - 1425181756: (..\BlockUtils.cpp:1585) Error adding block data: missing txio!
Also, maybe related, I have these lines repeated many times in my log files, from 2-20:
Code:
2015-02-20 18:17 (ERROR) -- Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "armorymodels.pyc", line 1102, in data
  File "CppBlockUtils.pyc", line 1729, in getScrAddrObjByKey
RuntimeError: no ScrAddr matches key

2015-02-20 18:17 (ERROR) -- Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "armorymodels.pyc", line 1169, in data
  File "CppBlockUtils.pyc", line 1729, in getScrAddrObjByKey
RuntimeError: no ScrAddr matches key

2015-02-20 18:17 (ERROR) -- Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "armorymodels.pyc", line 1128, in data
  File "CppBlockUtils.pyc", line 1729, in getScrAddrObjByKey
RuntimeError: no ScrAddr matches key



-ERROR - 1425164415: (..\BlockWriteBatcher.cpp:429) STXO needs to be re-added/marked-unspent but it
-ERROR - 1425164415: (..\BlockWriteBatcher.cpp:430) was already declared unspent in the DB

-WARN  - 1425164415: (..\StoredBlockObj.cpp:1883) failed to erase txio in subshh: doesn't exist!


I just realized you are using supernode =P. I'm halfway through what I expect is the last change to the DB structure, it will speed up the scanning, with more scalability and stability, and will nuke this issue among others. That'll be packed with the extra slim fullnode version, but it won't be the release we'll put out this week. That one is for emergency bug fixes.
sr. member
Activity: 255
Merit: 250
Senior Developer - Armory
Where can I get this new 0.93.1 beta? I need it as I have been completely unable to properly run 0.93.

It's not out yet. We're still testing a fix for a major issue several people have been seeing. We'll post here when the new version is ready.
full member
Activity: 147
Merit: 100
Do you like fire? I'm full of it.
Where can I get this new 0.93.1 beta? I need it as I have been completely unable to properly run 0.93.
legendary
Activity: 3738
Merit: 1360
Armory Developer
How often does this happen? Is it always the same address?
sr. member
Activity: 250
Merit: 253
0.92.99.7 supernode, Windows 7
I had two new transactions today, one sending and then one receiving. Both showed up when they had 0-conf, and then disappeared later, making Armory show an incorrect balance. I think each disappeared when it got a confirmation. Upgraded to 0.93, ran Help > Clear All Unconfirmed, and restarted Armory several times with no change.
Something that might have had an impact on this was that I also had a wallet loaded into Armory with ~131,000 imported private keys and many transactions on those addresses.

Wallet size will not impact supernode at all. This is some sort of scanning corner case. Can you see these transaction as part of the main chain in bc.info? I won't be going directly after this since I'm currently modifying a bunch of stuff in supernode for more stability and speed (this is for 0.93.1)
Yes, the transactions appear in the main chain, and no orphaned/other blocks (that bc.info is aware of).
I'm still having this issue in 0.93 and the current 0.93-bugfix branch (0.93-beta-a4561d1fa9 is what shows up in About): a perfectly ordinary transaction appears when it has 0-conf, then disappears when it gets 1 confirmation (until I rescan, which takes a long time).

This appears in the log every time it encounters a new block:
Code:
-ERROR - 1425181756: (..\StoredBlockObj.cpp:1863) We should've found an unpsent txio in the subSSH but didn't
-ERROR - 1425181756: (..\BlockUtils.cpp:1585) Error adding block data: missing txio!
Also, maybe related, I have these lines repeated many times in my log files, from 2-20:
Code:
2015-02-20 18:17 (ERROR) -- Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "armorymodels.pyc", line 1102, in data
  File "CppBlockUtils.pyc", line 1729, in getScrAddrObjByKey
RuntimeError: no ScrAddr matches key

2015-02-20 18:17 (ERROR) -- Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "armorymodels.pyc", line 1169, in data
  File "CppBlockUtils.pyc", line 1729, in getScrAddrObjByKey
RuntimeError: no ScrAddr matches key

2015-02-20 18:17 (ERROR) -- Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "armorymodels.pyc", line 1128, in data
  File "CppBlockUtils.pyc", line 1729, in getScrAddrObjByKey
RuntimeError: no ScrAddr matches key



-ERROR - 1425164415: (..\BlockWriteBatcher.cpp:429) STXO needs to be re-added/marked-unspent but it
-ERROR - 1425164415: (..\BlockWriteBatcher.cpp:430) was already declared unspent in the DB

-WARN  - 1425164415: (..\StoredBlockObj.cpp:1883) failed to erase txio in subshh: doesn't exist!

sr. member
Activity: 255
Merit: 250
Senior Developer - Armory
I found another bug: When signing any multisig/simulfunding transaction that will not be broadcast yet, attempting to close the window by pressing X has no effect. Can a Done button be added to these?

That's probably another Qt bug. (I know you're a Mac user.) Adding a button should be doable. I'll get that going. Thanks for the report. Smiley
full member
Activity: 120
Merit: 100
Java Coder
I found another bug: When signing any multisig/simulfunding transaction that will not be broadcast yet, attempting to close the window by pressing X has no effect. Can a Done button be added to these?
legendary
Activity: 3738
Merit: 1360
Armory Developer

While I cannot get it to CRASH from scratch, both the fresh startup with no DBs and subsequent startups all do the same thing 100%: They build the DB in "silence" with the status part of the UI unresponsive, then, at some point during the Armory DB building part, they stop progressing for no apparent reason around 19-20GB size, while the disk activity continues to be intense. Once they reach that, they stay there indefinetly. Subsequent restarts of the app will show Armory catch up with the extra few blocks that popped up on the network during that time, but once they get back to building the Armory DB they again stop and they remain that way, best I've checked, for at least 6 hours. Since the initial 20GB are built in less than 2 hours, I doubt the remaining 9GB of Armory DB are actually taking that long.

The other thing to point out, again with 100% occurrence, is closing the Armory once it is in this state. The UI says a big "Preparing to shut down" on the main page, but remains stuck at that stage while still using the HDD. It takes a second go to the File -> Quit Armory for it to close, and then it does it in a few seconds. Usually when an app cannot shut down it doesn't "try harder" the second time you ask it, it either eventually does it from the initial command or it doesn't at all and has to be killed through forced end task, but in this case Armory actually requires me to issue the Quit Armory option twice in order to close.

I have checked my task manager and can find no phantom armory/bitcoind/guardian processes, so it's also not the case of a previous lingering process. I really am confused.

Ok so, do the original thing I asked for: wipe your log files and database folder on either of your machines, let it start fresh all the way up to the point where it gets stuck. Then kill the process and give me the logs. I think that'll yield some interesting data.
full member
Activity: 147
Merit: 100
Do you like fire? I'm full of it.
No, they each downloaded the blockchain independently from scratch. I don't know if I can replicate that crash, it was a one-off oddity. It had run for 24h+ building the blockchain then armory db without a single crash and I restarted it repeatedly, it crashed once then didn't when I relaunched it. I'll see what I can do. Since you're only asking questions despite seeing both machines' logs I'm guessing the logs were of no help?

The logs don't have the one good hint I was hoping for. On the other hand I didn't pick that the error is not deterministic at first. That's an interesting point on its own. I was under the impression the error was occurring 100% under the "right" conditions, which is why I hoped a fresh log + fresh db folder would really outline the exact error.

Have you seen any pattern in the bug appearance? What would you say is the failure to success ratio?

If you can't get it to fail when it's starting from scratch then just report it and that's about it. I'll have to get my clue from some other vector.
While I cannot get it to CRASH from scratch, both the fresh startup with no DBs and subsequent startups all do the same thing 100%: They build the DB in "silence" with the status part of the UI unresponsive, then, at some point during the Armory DB building part, they stop progressing for no apparent reason around 19-20GB size, while the disk activity continues to be intense. Once they reach that, they stay there indefinetly. Subsequent restarts of the app will show Armory catch up with the extra few blocks that popped up on the network during that time, but once they get back to building the Armory DB they again stop and they remain that way, best I've checked, for at least 6 hours. Since the initial 20GB are built in less than 2 hours, I doubt the remaining 9GB of Armory DB are actually taking that long.

The other thing to point out, again with 100% occurrence, is closing the Armory once it is in this state. The UI says a big "Preparing to shut down" on the main page, but remains stuck at that stage while still using the HDD. It takes a second go to the File -> Quit Armory for it to close, and then it does it in a few seconds. Usually when an app cannot shut down it doesn't "try harder" the second time you ask it, it either eventually does it from the initial command or it doesn't at all and has to be killed through forced end task, but in this case Armory actually requires me to issue the Quit Armory option twice in order to close.

I have checked my task manager and can find no phantom armory/bitcoind/guardian processes, so it's also not the case of a previous lingering process. I really am confused.
legendary
Activity: 3738
Merit: 1360
Armory Developer
No, they each downloaded the blockchain independently from scratch. I don't know if I can replicate that crash, it was a one-off oddity. It had run for 24h+ building the blockchain then armory db without a single crash and I restarted it repeatedly, it crashed once then didn't when I relaunched it. I'll see what I can do. Since you're only asking questions despite seeing both machines' logs I'm guessing the logs were of no help?

The logs don't have the one good hint I was hoping for. On the other hand I didn't pick that the error is not deterministic at first. That's an interesting point on its own. I was under the impression the error was occurring 100% under the "right" conditions, which is why I hoped a fresh log + fresh db folder would really outline the exact error.

Have you seen any pattern in the bug appearance? What would you say is the failure to success ratio?

If you can't get it to fail when it's starting from scratch then just report it and that's about it. I'll have to get my clue from some other vector.
full member
Activity: 147
Merit: 100
Do you like fire? I'm full of it.
No, they each downloaded the blockchain independently from scratch. I don't know if I can replicate that crash, it was a one-off oddity. It had run for 24h+ building the blockchain then armory db without a single crash and I restarted it repeatedly, it crashed once then didn't when I relaunched it. I'll see what I can do. Since you're only asking questions despite seeing both machines' logs I'm guessing the logs were of no help?
Pages:
Jump to: