Project Information
- Repository: https://github.com/steemit/hivemind
- Project Name: Hivemind
- Publisher: Steemit Inc.
Expected behavior
Post/comment information obtained via get_discussions contains the author reputation as well as the reputation values of each voter in the active_votes field. While basically all Steem front-ends show the normalized/log10 reputation value, this number is stored in steemd in the raw version. All reputation values returned from hivemind or steemd nodes should follow the same format.
Actual behavior
The reputations in the list of active_votes is returned in the log10/normalized value while the author_reputation field returns the raw value.
How to reproduce
steemit hivemind node:
curl -s --data '{"method": "tags_api.get_discussion", "params": {"author": "steemitboard", "permlink": "steemitboard-notify-stmdev-20181024t002841000z"}, "jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 2}' https://api.steemit.com
[...] "active_votes":[{"voter":"stmdev","reputation":"59.5","percent":"10000","rshares":"0"}],"author_reputation":20209499381910, [...]
- reputation in
active_votesis the log10 value author_reputationis the raw value
as comparison with the minnowsupport steemd node:
curl -s --data '{"method": "tags_api.get_discussion", "params": {"author": "steemitboard", "permlink": "steemitboard-notify-stmdev-20181024t002841000z"}, "jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 2}' https://steemd.minnowsupportproject.org
[...],"active_votes":[{"voter":"stmdev","weight":0,"rshares":0,"percent":10000,"reputation":"7203258450054","time":"2018-11-11T10:33:09"}],"replies":[],"author_reputation":"23856299575939"[...]
- reputation in
active_votesis the raw value author_reputationis the raw value
The bug was confirmed by roadscape and is beeing adressed:
https://github.com/steemit/hivemind/issues/161
Hi @stmdev, thanks for making this contribution..
I see the PO has acknowledged the bug and made a pull request to that effect. I like the manner in which you explained the discrepancy between what is expected and what was presently at play.
It is a particularly tricky case as it can be mistaken for an intended feature. It is good of you to have spotted the error.
I also love that you waited for the PO's acknowledgement before posting. It is a very good practice.
I look forward to more of your reports :)
Your contribution has been evaluated according to Utopian policies and guidelines, as well as a predefined set of questions pertaining to the category.
To view those questions and the relevant answers related to your post, click here.
Need help? Chat with us on Discord.
[utopian-moderator]
Thank you for your review, @fego! Keep up the good work!
Hey, @stmdev!
Thanks for contributing on Utopian.
We’re already looking forward to your next contribution!
Get higher incentives and support Utopian.io!
SteemPlus or Steeditor). Simply set @utopian.pay as a 5% (or higher) payout beneficiary on your contribution post (via
Want to chat? Join us on Discord https://discord.gg/h52nFrV.
Vote for Utopian Witness!