Armory 0.93 testing release! (with 0.05 BTC bug bounty)

[doug_armory]

It was working fine with the old Qt file browser

Yeah, I can always revert to that one. I just don't like it because there's no way, short of trickery or copying files beforehand, to get files from external media. (That and, let's face it, the Qt browser is ugly.)

[1715041538]

1715041538

[zombieslayer9099]

Yeah, I can always revert to that one. I just don't like it because there's no way, short of trickery or copying files beforehand, to get files from external media. (That and, let's face it, the Qt browser is ugly.)

Lol, it is ugly but at least it works

[goatpig]

Issue should be fixed now, feel free to pull 0.93-bugfix and give it a spin. As usual, wipe your existing DB beforehand

[justusranvier]

Issue should be fixed now, feel free to pull 0.93-bugfix and give it a spin. As usual, wipe your existing DB beforehand

0.93-bugfix now works for me.

[doug_armory]

Yeah, I can always revert to that one. I just don't like it because there's no way, short of trickery or copying files beforehand, to get files from external media. (That and, let's face it, the Qt browser is ugly.)

Lol, it is ugly but at least it works

Oh, I forgot to ask, which version of OS X you're running? I'm still running 10.9.5 on my Mac (I'll upgrade to 10.10 soon) but I also build and run Armory on VMs for the latest versions from 10.7-10.10.

[zombieslayer9099]

Oh, I forgot to ask, which version of OS X you're running? I'm still running 10.9.5 on my Mac (I'll upgrade to 10.10 soon) but I also build and run Armory on VMs for the latest versions from 10.7-10.10.

OS X 10.10
I also noticed that there is an option to rescan an individual lockbox when I right click it, can the same option be added to wallets?

[Carlton Banks]

Issue should be fixed now, feel free to pull 0.93-bugfix and give it a spin. As usual, wipe your existing DB beforehand

A tantalising glimpse into how much easier Armory will be to set up and use; 25 minutes to build and scan the Db. Then when you bring the application up again, the resync takes about the same length of time as the wallet check (and they're concurrent too). Couldn't have asked for much better than that.

[bitpop]

Issue should be fixed now, feel free to pull 0.93-bugfix and give it a spin. As usual, wipe your existing DB beforehand

A tantalising glimpse into how much easier Armory will be to set up and use; 25 minutes to build and scan the Db. Then when you bring the application up again, the resync takes about the same length of time as the wallet check (and they're concurrent too). Couldn't have asked for much better than that.

I can't wait. .99.2 took 12 hours to rebuild

[japerry]

Issue should be fixed now, feel free to pull 0.93-bugfix and give it a spin. As usual, wipe your existing DB beforehand

A tantalising glimpse into how much easier Armory will be to set up and use; 25 minutes to build and scan the Db. Then when you bring the application up again, the resync takes about the same length of time as the wallet check (and they're concurrent too). Couldn't have asked for much better than that.

I'm not a compiling guru. Any ETA on the Windows pre-compile?

[goatpig]

I'm not a compiling guru. Any ETA on the Windows pre-compile?

etotheipi will put out .4 either today or tomorrow I expect

A tantalising glimpse into how much easier Armory will be to set up and use; 25 minutes to build and scan the Db. Then when you bring the application up again, the resync takes about the same length of time as the wallet check (and they're concurrent too). Couldn't have asked for much better than that.

I'm not done yet. The current state will go into .4, but it should get faster for .5. I have a couple bugs to go after first then I'm traveling so expect .5 for next week.

[zombieslayer9099]

What specific bugfixes/features will be in .4?

[goatpig]

What specific bugfixes/features will be in .4?

Too many bugs to just list them. The grand majority of all the bugs reported in this thread here have been fixed. Actually a more accurate description of the work done would be all deal breakers (like the scanning speed issue) + anything that could be fixed without revisiting in depth mechanics.

[zombieslayer9099]

Reporting another couple of bugs, I received bitcoins but Armory showed the TX as having 0 confirmations, even though it had 3 on blockchain. I rescanned the DB, and somehow all my wallet balances were doubled. No duplicate transactions, but the balances were doubled.
I rebuilt and rescanned the DB and everything was fixed.

I'm not done yet. The current state will go into .4, but it should get faster for .5. I have a couple bugs to go after first then I'm traveling so expect .5 for next week.

Also what exactly do you mean by that bolded part above? The DB build/scan will be even faster?

[goatpig]

Reporting another couple of bugs, I received bitcoins but Armory showed the TX as having 0 confirmations, even though it had 3 on blockchain. I rescanned the DB, and somehow all my wallet balances were doubled. No duplicate transactions, but the balances were doubled.
I rebuilt and rescanned the DB and everything was fixed.

This happened with the current version in the repo or with .3? That's something I specifically fixed for .4

Also what exactly do you mean by that bolded part above? The DB build/scan will be even faster?

If it was my utmost priority, I could make the build phase take 1 min and the scan take less than 5min. With my CPU at least.

This is fine in its current state (~25 min to get going on a HDD), but the super short build is easy enough to roll after the round of HDD optimizations so that's what I'm going to experiment with.

[zombieslayer9099]

Reporting another couple of bugs, I received bitcoins but Armory showed the TX as having 0 confirmations, even though it had 3 on blockchain. I rescanned the DB, and somehow all my wallet balances were doubled. No duplicate transactions, but the balances were doubled.
I rebuilt and rescanned the DB and everything was fixed.

This happened with the current version in the repo or with .3? That's something I specifically fixed for .4

Also what exactly do you mean by that bolded part above? The DB build/scan will be even faster?

If it was my utmost priority, I could make the build phase take 1 min and the scan take less than 5min. With my CPU at least.

This is fine in its current state (~25 min to get going on a HDD), but the super short build is easy enough to roll after the round of HDD optimizations so that's what I'm going to experiment with.

This happens on .3

[goatpig]

This happens on .3

Give it a spin when .4 comes out, should be fixed.

[goatpig]

0.92.99.3 fullnode on Windows 7 here. Armory is fully synchronized, not apparently doing anything, but the CPU usage averages about 22-24% of a core (6% total), whether the Armory window is visible or not. It did not do this in earlier versions (certainly not in 0.92, and I don't think it did it in 0.92.99.2).

I had issues (i.e. a crash) with it building the db for a supernode earlier, but I know that I don't have the very latest version (waiting for a Windows build), so I won't repeat that.

I got a good idea where the idling cpu load is taking place, I'll look into cutting that down. If supernode crashes mid scan, restart Armory and it should resume where it left off.

I also noticed that there is an option to rescan an individual lockbox when I right click it, can the same option be added to wallets?

I added that to support previous lockbox mechanics. I didn't know at the time if it was going to be useful (I wasn't accustomed to "py side" LB mechanics a few months ago). I don't think it is necessary anymore, but since it's here I'm leaving it as is. I won't add that to wallets. There is no significant speed difference between scanning a single wallet or several, so users are better off rescanning all their wallets together when in doubt.

[zombieslayer9099]

Found a bug with the Transaction Details window, on all receiving transactions, no matter where it came from, Armory displays the sender as Non-Standard: 3J98t1WpEZ73CNmQviecrnyiWrnqRhWNLy, such as this TX here:

http://prntscr.com/5xuyag

https://blockchain.info/tx/80fb81483b2a9d601ed69aba2035b3c7e34ef8889b7940308051f19dbac9d577

You can check the transaction IDs to verify they are the same

[zombieslayer9099]

Armory secure downloader for OS X is broken, when it finishes it won't let me save the file. It just displays a box with the file name and the folder to save it in, it's not a file browser, then I can't even save it. I manually download it, then on top of that it 0.92.99.4 won't even open!

Code:

2015-01-27 21:54 (ERROR) -- Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/Applications/Armory.app/Contents/MacOS/py/usr/lib/armory/ArmoryQt.py", line 40, in <module>
    from announcefetch import AnnounceDataFetcher, ANNOUNCE_URL, ANNOUNCE_URL_BACKUP, \
  File "/Applications/Armory.app/Contents/MacOS/py/usr/lib/armory/announcefetch.py", line 8, in <module>
    from armoryengine.ALL import *
  File "/Applications/Armory.app/Contents/MacOS/py/usr/lib/armory/armoryengine/ALL.py", line 10, in <module>
    from armoryengine.BDM import *
  File "/Applications/Armory.app/Contents/MacOS/py/usr/lib/armory/armoryengine/BDM.py", line 413, in <module>
    TheBDM = BlockDataManager(isOffline=False)
  File "/Applications/Armory.app/Contents/MacOS/py/usr/lib/armory/armoryengine/BDM.py", line 163, in __init__
    self.callback = PySide_CallBack(self).__disown__()
  File "/Applications/Armory.app/Contents/MacOS/py/usr/lib/armory/armoryengine/BDM.py", line 43, in __init__
    self.bdm = bdm
  File "/Applications/Armory.app/Contents/MacOS/py/usr/lib/armory/CppBlockUtils.py", line 4075, in <lambda>
    __setattr__ = lambda self, name, value: _swig_setattr(self, BDM_CallBack, name, value)
  File "/Applications/Armory.app/Contents/MacOS/py/usr/lib/armory/CppBlockUtils.py", line 51, in _swig_setattr
    return _swig_setattr_nondynamic(self, class_type, name, value, 0)
  File "/Applications/Armory.app/Contents/MacOS/py/usr/lib/armory/CppBlockUtils.py", line 45, in _swig_setattr_nondynamic
    object.__setattr__(self, name, value)
TypeError: can't apply this __setattr__ to instance object

Displays that in the log every time I try to start Armory.

[etotheipi]

Okay, most of the team here has now upgraded to Core 0.10, which was a blind spot in our radar for the last couple test releases.  To be fair, we did get it working with 0.10 (and hence why 0.92.99.2 worked), but it apparently broke unnoticed in that other update.

A special thanks to goatpig who's been busting his ass getting all this new blockdatamanager (BDM) stuff in order, with the new databases, etc.   It's been rocky, but these things always are, and he's been very quick to respond and handled the technicals like a boss!  Thanks goatpig!

I have uploaded .4 to S3, and also pushed the "v0.92.99.4-testing" signed tag.  Hopefully we're finally nearing a releasable state.


As always, please use the secure downloader, but here's the links just in case:
  Armory 0.92.99.4-testing for Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8+ (32- and 64-bit)
  Armory 0.92.99.4-testing for MacOSX 10.7+ (64bit)
  Armory 0.92.99.4-testing for Ubuntu 12.04+ (32bit)
  Armory 0.92.99.4-testing for Ubuntu 12.04+ (64bit)
  Armory 0.92.99.4-testing for RaspberryPi  (armhf)

  Armory 0.92.99.4-testing Offline Bundle for Ubuntu 12.04 exact (32bit)
  Armory 0.92.99.4-testing Offline Bundle for Ubuntu 12.04 exact (64bit)
  Armory 0.92.99.4-testing Offline Bundle for RaspberryPi  (armhf)

  Armory 0.92.99.4-testing: Signed hashes of all installers