SwapRandom(unsigned int, unsigned int): Assertion 'it_1 != mapInfo.end()' failed.
#297
Closed
opened 1 year ago by duke
·
11 comments
No Branch/Tag Specified
arm
asyncnotedecryption
danger
dev
dev-aarch64
dev-mac
dev-old-randomx
divzaddrs
dragonx
duke
freebsd
getfilterednotes
hip39
insync
jahway603
master
mvstuff
onryo
p2p_privacy
ramhash
relaytx
rx-largepages
setbestchain
warmup
witness_cache
wolfssl
wolfssl_win
z_createrawtransaction
z_importwallet
z_signmessage
v0.11.2.z0
v0.11.2.z1
v0.11.2.z2
v0.11.2.z3
v0.11.2.z4
v0.11.2.z5
v0.11.2.z6
v0.11.2.z7
v0.11.2.z8
v0.11.2.z9
v1.0.0
v1.0.0-beta1
v1.0.0-beta2
v1.0.0-rc1
v1.0.0-rc2
v1.0.0-rc3
v1.0.0-rc4
v1.0.1
v1.0.10
v1.0.10-1
v1.0.11
v1.0.11-rc1
v1.0.12
v1.0.12-rc1
v1.0.13
v1.0.13-rc1
v1.0.13-rc2
v1.0.14
v1.0.14-rc1
v1.0.15
v1.0.15-rc1
v1.0.2
v1.0.3
v1.0.4
v1.0.5
v1.0.6
v1.0.7-1
v1.0.8
v1.0.8-1
v1.0.9
v1.1.0
v1.1.0-rc1
v1.1.1
v1.1.1-rc1
v1.1.1-rc2
v1.1.2
v1.1.2-rc1
v2.0.0
v2.0.0-rc1
v2.0.1
v3.0.0
v3.1.0
v3.1.1
v3.10.0
v3.10.1
v3.10.2
v3.2.0
v3.2.1
v3.2.1-alpha
v3.2.1-beta
v3.2.2
v3.2.3
v3.3.0
v3.3.1
v3.3.2
v3.4.0
v3.4.1
v3.5.0
v3.5.1
v3.5.2
v3.6.0
v3.6.1
v3.6.2
v3.6.3
v3.7.0
v3.7.1
v3.8.0
v3.9.0
v3.9.1
v3.9.2
v3.9.3
v3.9.4
Labels
bounty up to 500 HUSH 2001-5000 bounty
bounty between 2001 and 5000 HUSH 501-2000 bounty
bounty between 501 and 2000 HUSH arm
something doesn't work on arm beginners
for new developers bug
may or may not be a bug build
problems building documentation
not enough information feature
new feature high priority
high priority i2p
related to i2p low priority
low priority medium priority
medium priority question
something is not clear release
release label or issue related to it testing
related to testing tor
related to tor wontfix
this won't be fixed
Apply labels
Clear labels
0-500 bounty
bounty up to 500 HUSH 2001-5000 bounty
bounty between 2001 and 5000 HUSH 501-2000 bounty
bounty between 501 and 2000 HUSH arm
something doesn't work on arm beginners
for new developers bug
may or may not be a bug build
problems building documentation
not enough information feature
new feature high priority
high priority i2p
related to i2p low priority
low priority medium priority
medium priority question
something is not clear release
release label or issue related to it testing
related to testing tor
related to tor wontfix
this won't be fixed
No Label
0-500 bounty
2001-5000 bounty
501-2000 bounty
arm
beginners
bug
build
documentation
feature
high priority
i2p
low priority
medium priority
question
release
testing
tor
wontfix
Milestone
Set milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Assign users
Clear assignees
No Assignees
3 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.
No due date set.
Dependencies
This issue currently doesn't have any dependencies.
Reference in new issue
There is no content yet.
Delete Branch '%!s(MISSING)'
Deleting a branch is permanent. It CANNOT be undone. Continue?
No
Yes
Related to #266
@fekt have you seen this bug happen again lately?
@duke I haven't seen it again since reported. Now that I said that I won't be surprised if it crashes with it soon 🙂
One DRGX user reported the original assert here: #266
This assert is removed in commit
04c28e3eef
on the duke branch. After some testing it will be sent to the dev branch.Sounds good. I just got this assert again so I might try updating to your branch. It seems to crash whenever I say it's good just to prove me wrong.
I just received this bug with Hush Daemon version v3.9.3-5184b4483-dirty on OS: Debian GNU/Linux 11 (bullseye) aarch64
@jahway603 did you get this bug with a hush full node or dragonx full node?
@duke I got this with a hush full node, specifically a lightwalletd server
@duke I updated to latest
duke
branch yesterday onlite2.hushpool.is
. I'll report back if I get any new crashes with asserts removed.@fekt it might be time for you to say "it seems to be working" so that we can tempt the code into breaking again 😅
@duke it hasn't crashed again yet. maybe it will now lol
@fekt I am going to go ahead and close this. Since this assertion was removed, if there are still bugs, they will look different with different errors and we can make new issues for those