Examples: query, "exact match", wildcard*, wild?ard, wild*rd
Fuzzy search: cake~ (finds cakes, bake)
Term boost: "red velvet"^4, chocolate^2
Field grouping: tags:(+work -"fun-stuff")
Escape special characters +-&|!(){}[]^"~*?:\ - e.g. \+ \* \!
Range search: properties.timestamp:[1587729413488 TO *] (inclusive), properties.title:{A TO Z}(excluding A and Z)
Combinations: chocolate AND vanilla, chocolate OR vanilla, (chocolate OR vanilla) NOT "vanilla pudding"
Field search: properties.title:"The Title" AND text
Answered
Inconsistent slice when calling my_address() in different contexts

I am encountering an inconsistency when calling my_address() in different contexts and hope someone can help me understand why this is happening.

When I call my_address() within get function, it returns a slice that starts with 0 bits, as shown below:

CS{Cell{004380008d090b360188f0560ee4010388f181ad345579022d85d84b0ac904ead5acb410} bits: 0..267; refs: 0..0}

Conversely, when I call my_address() within an impure function, it returns a slice that starts with 1 bit:

CS{Cell{026fc0004684859b00c4782b07720081c478c0d69a2abc8116c2ec25856482756ad65a0254910843292a22680000000001ab3f0500bd26da1340} bits: 1..268; refs: 0..0}

Despite these differences, when I parse both addresses with parse_std_addr, they return the same workchain and 256-bit integer address:

workchain = 0
integer address = 1993502832782254581058910437300945815969310326214648768594806511355848123808

Therefore, when calculating a child contract address using my_address, it yields different results depending on the context in which it's called. Can anyone explain why this is happening and how I should handle it?

  
  
Posted 9 months ago
Edited 9 months ago
Votes Newest

Answers


The CS{Cell{...} bits: 0..267; refs: 0..0} is the string representation of a slice. A slice is a structure for reading a cell.

In your example, depending on the context, 2 different cells where returned and converted to slices. The first one has 267 bits, and the second has 268 bits, but also starts from bit 1.

That is, even though these cells are different, because slices are starting at different indexes, they represent the same thing at the end, and as you said, after parsing them using parse_std_addr, they both return the same address.

Using this address, they must produce the same child address. You're problem might lie in that part of your code.

1
1
Posted 9 months ago
1
1

Yes. As Behrang said, the problem lies in the other part. Thanks!

Jeff   8 months ago Report
10K Views
1 Answer
9 months ago
9 months ago