Receipt fixes and state trie clearing detail

[austinabell]

Changes how the receipts are encoded and decoded to follow proper protocol of replacing intermediate state root with status encoding. Also performs state trie clearing at some appropriate points in a simulated system that was previously missed (see: state.IntermediateRoot(config.IsAtlantis(parent.Number()) like changes).

Since previous receipts would have had status encoded and saved into the database, I have made the decoding backwards compatible:

// DecodeRLP implements rlp.Decoder, and loads both consensus and implementation
// fields of a receipt from an RLP stream.
func (r *ReceiptForStorage) DecodeRLP(s *rlp.Stream) error {
	raw, err := s.Raw()
	if err != nil {
		return err
	}

	// Try decoding the receipt without Status first
	if err := decodeStoredReceiptRLP(r, raw); err == nil {
		return nil
	}

	return decodeOldStoredReceiptRLP(r, raw)
}

where decodeOldStoredReceiptRLP does not assume the ambiguous nature of PostStateOrStatus field of the Receipts and sets both fields specifically.

Also cleaned up the struct declaration for encoding/ decoding because encoding and decoding an untyped interface relying on positional variables and the confusing logic structure was very bad.

Edit: Resolves #55

[soc1c]

Is this EIP-658?

[austinabell]

Is this EIP-658?

yes, the change necessary to enable 658 is included in this PR:

rlp.Encode(w, []interface{}{r.statusEncoding(), r.CumulativeGasUsed, r.Bloom, r.Logs})

and all surrounding logic

from:

rlp.Encode(w, []interface{}{r.PostState, r.CumulativeGasUsed, r.Bloom, r.Logs})

[GregTheGreek]

Failed contract creation should not have success = 1

Reproduce-able test below:

EDIT: Test was incorrect, I added a to field which no longer made it a contract deployment.

~> eth.sendTransaction({from:eth.coinbase, to:'0x8b282d2123e77b9bc4b83eb732175e0406f3354a', data: "60606040525b6000151560125760006000fd5b5b5b60338060216000396000f30060606040525bfe00a165627a7a723058203d54db7a632777e6c9add0977c74024489bc162189d3ae9588c83b3561a0d1c30029", gas:45000});

"0x0a3fed3cfbf56324977c4b2ec86d4201c6f3a7805909f1e3bff1b6b6de2ca3d6"

 > eth.getTransactionReceipt("0x0a3fed3cfbf56324977c4b2ec86d4201c6f3a7805909f1e3bff1b6b6de2ca3d6")

{
  blockHash: "0xd3db64f50db9e14935621202cef4189756f08c8cbb6a973adcf934967deddc27",
  blockNumber: 40357,
  contractAddress: null,
  cumulativeGasUsed: 26200,
  from: "0x6ac28d519781d6321da388358c79cf08de1dddce",
  gasUsed: 26200,
  logs: [],
  root: "",
  status: 1,
  to: "0x8b282d2123e77b9bc4b83eb732175e0406f3354a",
  transactionHash: "0x0a3fed3cfbf56324977c4b2ec86d4201c6f3a7805909f1e3bff1b6b6de2ca3d6",
  transactionIndex: 0
}

Bytecode is equivalent to this (use this version of remix to verify):

pragma solidity 0.4.10;

contract Test {
    
    function Test() payable {
        require(false);
    }
}

[noot]

@GregTheGreek you have a to field in your transaction, contract deployments don't have to. you're sending a normal tx which should be successful

[GregTheGreek]

@noot woops thanks for that catch, disregard previous comment this looks to be functioning correctly

> eth.sendTransaction({from:eth.coinbase, data: "60606040525b6000151560125760006000fd5b5b5b60338060216000396000f30060606040525bfe00a165627a7a723058203d54db7a632777e6c9add0977c74024489bc162189d3ae9588c83b3561a0d1c30029", gas:90000});

"0xf2645dd6cc063096a2e326cc65834af3567560bd5b1de824ca3e4b5f31977746"

> eth.getTransactionReceipt("0xf2645dd6cc063096a2e326cc65834af3567560bd5b1de824ca3e4b5f31977746")

{
  blockHash: "0x6de5d8ccac56a2b3e529cd3ebe29a6ff4c59262c337c57651bce043e4958d7af",
  blockNumber: 40379,
  contractAddress: "0x9d1d7c22db1b325dfeb7603bcad1f487ef093afe",
  cumulativeGasUsed: 58247,
  from: "0x6ac28d519781d6321da388358c79cf08de1dddce",
  gasUsed: 58247,
  logs: [],
  root: "",
  status: 0,
  to: null,
  transactionHash: "0xf2645dd6cc063096a2e326cc65834af3567560bd5b1de824ca3e4b5f31977746",
  transactionIndex: 0
}