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

🐞[QAnet] [Bug]: Grace period contracts are showing zero locked tfts with no billing rate because its on a dedicated machine while it was never on a dedicated node #3364

Closed
1 task done
Tracked by #1565
A-Harby opened this issue Sep 3, 2024 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@A-Harby
Copy link
Contributor

A-Harby commented Sep 3, 2024

Is there an existing issue for this?

  • I have searched the existing issues

which package/s did you face the problem with?

Dashboard

What happened?

Grace period contracts are showing This contract is in a grace period because it's on a dedicated machine also in a grace period. That's why this node is locked with zero TFTS and no billing rate. while I never rented a node or deployed any of my contracts on a dedicated machine!

Steps To Reproduce

No response

which network/s did you face the problem on?

Dev

version

4829e02

Twin ID/s

8823

Node ID/s

1, 4416

Farm ID/s

No response

Contract ID/s

No response

Relevant screenshots/screen records

image
image

node_contracts.json
name_contracts.json

Relevant log output

This contract is in a grace period because it's on a dedicated machine also in a grace period. That's why this node is locked with zero TFTS and no billing rate.
@A-Harby A-Harby added type_bug Something isn't working dashboard tfchain_client labels Sep 3, 2024
@A-Harby A-Harby changed the title 🐞 [Bug]: Grace period contracts are showing zero locked tfts with no bailing rate because its on a dedicated machine while it was never on any 🐞 [Bug]: Grace period contracts are showing zero locked tfts with no bailing rate because its on a dedicated machine while it was never on a dedicated node Sep 4, 2024
@ramezsaeed ramezsaeed added this to 3.15.x Sep 5, 2024
@ramezsaeed ramezsaeed added this to the 2.6.0 milestone Sep 5, 2024
@amiraabouhadid
Copy link
Contributor

amiraabouhadid commented Sep 5, 2024

related to tfchain locked amount calculation being broken #3340 .

@amiraabouhadid amiraabouhadid moved this to Accepted in 3.15.x Sep 5, 2024
@0oM4R 0oM4R moved this from Accepted to Pending Review in 3.15.x Sep 11, 2024
@ramezsaeed ramezsaeed changed the title 🐞 [Bug]: Grace period contracts are showing zero locked tfts with no bailing rate because its on a dedicated machine while it was never on a dedicated node 🐞 [Bug]: Grace period contracts are showing zero locked tfts with no belling rate because its on a dedicated machine while it was never on a dedicated node Sep 22, 2024
@amiraabouhadid amiraabouhadid changed the title 🐞 [Bug]: Grace period contracts are showing zero locked tfts with no belling rate because its on a dedicated machine while it was never on a dedicated node 🐞 [Bug]: Grace period contracts are showing zero locked tfts with no billing rate because its on a dedicated machine while it was never on a dedicated node Sep 24, 2024
@0oM4R 0oM4R moved this from Pending Review to In Verification in 3.15.x Oct 31, 2024
@khaledyoussef24 khaledyoussef24 changed the title 🐞 [Bug]: Grace period contracts are showing zero locked tfts with no billing rate because its on a dedicated machine while it was never on a dedicated node 🐞[QAnet] [Bug]: Grace period contracts are showing zero locked tfts with no billing rate because its on a dedicated machine while it was never on a dedicated node Nov 4, 2024
@A-Harby
Copy link
Contributor Author

A-Harby commented Nov 4, 2024

Verified, Qanet 2.6.0-rc3.

The message now is more clearer and correct.
image
image

TC2618 - Grace period locked TFT amount

@A-Harby A-Harby moved this from In Verification to Done in 3.15.x Nov 4, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
Status: Done
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants