AlphaX/qortal
1
0
Fork 0
forked from Qortal/qortal
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Reordered code in Block.mint() to fix potential issue after mempow activates.

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
CalDescent 2022-09-20 08:50:37 +01:00
parent b99b1f5d57
commit 84d42b93e1
1 changed files with 5 additions and 4 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

9
src/main/java/org/qortal/block/Block.java
View File

@ -368,16 +368,17 @@ public class Block {
// Fetch our list of online accounts // Fetch our list of online accounts
List<OnlineAccountData> onlineAccounts = OnlineAccountsManager.getInstance().getOnlineAccounts(onlineAccountsTimestamp); List<OnlineAccountData> onlineAccounts = OnlineAccountsManager.getInstance().getOnlineAccounts(onlineAccountsTimestamp);
if (onlineAccounts.isEmpty()) {
LOGGER.error("No online accounts - not even our own?");
return null;
}
// If mempow is active, remove any legacy accounts that are missing a nonce // If mempow is active, remove any legacy accounts that are missing a nonce
if (timestamp >= BlockChain.getInstance().getOnlineAccountsMemoryPoWTimestamp()) { if (timestamp >= BlockChain.getInstance().getOnlineAccountsMemoryPoWTimestamp()) {
onlineAccounts.removeIf(a -> a.getNonce() == null || a.getNonce() < 0); onlineAccounts.removeIf(a -> a.getNonce() == null || a.getNonce() < 0);
} }
if (onlineAccounts.isEmpty()) {
LOGGER.error("No online accounts - not even our own?");
return null;
}
// Load sorted list of reward share public keys into memory, so that the indexes can be obtained. // Load sorted list of reward share public keys into memory, so that the indexes can be obtained.
// This is up to 100x faster than querying each index separately. For 4150 reward share keys, it // This is up to 100x faster than querying each index separately. For 4150 reward share keys, it
// was taking around 5000ms to query individually, vs 50ms using this approach. // was taking around 5000ms to query individually, vs 50ms using this approach.