Skip to content
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

Elaborate Error Message for rpcInternal #4959

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Oct 1, 2024

Conversation

ckeshava
Copy link
Collaborator

High Level Overview of Change

Validator operators are often flummoxed by the below error:

73-error

It would be helpful if the error message can instruct the users to run the rippled server in another process (./rippled) before executing any of the command-line client commands.

Context of Change

Type of Change

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • Refactor (non-breaking change that only restructures code)
  • Performance (increase or change in throughput and/or latency)
  • Tests (you added tests for code that already exists, or your new feature included in this PR)
  • Documentation update
  • Chore (no impact to binary, e.g. .gitignore, formatting, dropping support for older tooling)
  • Release

This is an elaboration of an error message.

API Impact

  • Public API: New feature (new methods and/or new fields)
  • Public API: Breaking change (in general, breaking changes should only impact the next api_version)
  • libxrpl change (any change that may affect libxrpl or dependents of libxrpl)
  • Peer protocol change (must be backward compatible or bump the peer protocol version)
    No change to API. No impact on performance either.

I manually verified (on MacOS) that the new error message is displayed, if rippled server isn't running in the background.

Copy link
Collaborator

@thejohnfreeman thejohnfreeman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This feels like a consequence of lumping client and server into the same executable. :/

@seelabs
Copy link
Collaborator

seelabs commented May 9, 2024

Needs to be reformatted.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 9, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 76.2%. Comparing base (1fbf8da) to head (2c011d4).
Report is 2 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/xrpld/net/detail/RPCCall.cpp 0.0% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop   #4959     +/-   ##
=========================================
- Coverage     76.2%   76.2%   -0.0%     
=========================================
  Files          760     760             
  Lines        61568   61568             
  Branches      8126    8126             
=========================================
- Hits         46909   46899     -10     
- Misses       14659   14669     +10     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
src/xrpld/net/detail/RPCCall.cpp 93.8% <0.0%> (ø)

... and 6 files with indirect coverage changes

Impacted file tree graph

@ckeshava ckeshava added the Passed Passed code review & PR owner thinks it's ready to merge. Perf sign-off may still be required. label Sep 19, 2024
@intelliot intelliot merged commit bf4a7b6 into XRPLF:develop Oct 1, 2024
18 checks passed
Bronek pushed a commit to Bronek/rippled that referenced this pull request Oct 17, 2024
Validator operators have been confused by the rpcInternal error, which can occur if the server is not running in another process.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Passed Passed code review & PR owner thinks it's ready to merge. Perf sign-off may still be required.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants