Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
RustChain’s bridged-supply undercount came from subtracting voided transfers twice. The aggregation already kept voided rows out of the locked and completed totals, but the old committed-supply formula subtracted the voided total again. Merged pull request #8517 corrects the formula to add the locked and completed amounts only.
How RustChain classifies bridge transfers
The reconciliation logic groups bridge_transfers by status and sums amount_rtc. It puts pending, locked, and confirming amounts into locked_in; completed amounts go into completed_in; and voided amounts are tracked separately. These are mutually exclusive statuses: a voided row is not also included in either of the first two totals.
RustChain maintainer Scottcjn summarized that partition in the review of pull request #8517: “Each bridge_transfers row has exactly one status, and _aggregate_bridge_state builds locked_in from pending|locked|confirming only (node/bridge_federation_routes.py:121-126).”
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Why the old formula under-reported committed supply
The old formula was:
bridged_supply_committed = locked_in + completed_in - voided_inThat subtraction is inconsistent with the aggregation. Because voided transfers are already absent from locked_in and completed_in, subtracting voided_in removes an amount that was never included in the sum. This double-subtraction makes committed supply too low; if the voided total is larger than the locked-plus-completed total, it can make the result negative.
Example: a 3 RTC voided transfer
Suppose the aggregation reports 30 RTC locked, 50 RTC completed, and 3 RTC voided. The locked and completed amounts already exclude the voided transfer. The old arithmetic returns 30 + 50 − 3 = 77 RTC, although the amount represented by the first two aggregates is 80 RTC.
What pull request #8517 changed
The merged fix removes the extra subtraction:
bridged_supply_committed = locked_in + completed_inFor the example above, the corrected committed amount is 30 + 50 = 80 RTC. The pull request also changes a separate expected value from 2.5 to 3.0. These are test-case values, not measurements of total RustChain bridge supply.
Rank #2
The pull request records 19 passing tests in node/tests/test_bridge_reconciliation.py. That is the verification reported in the pull-request record; it should not be read as an independent test run or evidence about every deployment.
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallOutdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchHow to check the invariant in a code review
Review the aggregation and formula together, rather than inspecting the final arithmetic in isolation. The invariant is that each status contributes to the intended aggregate once, and only once.
Rank #3
- Map status membership. Confirm which statuses feed
locked_in,completed_in, andvoided_in, and whether a row can belong to more than one group. - Trace the committed-supply expression. If voided rows are excluded from both counted aggregates, do not subtract their total from their sum.
- Check expectations against the partition. Include a case with locked, completed, and voided amounts, and assert that committed supply equals the first two totals without another void adjustment.
- Consider edge cases. A voided total greater than the counted locked-plus-completed amount should not drive committed supply below zero merely because voided amounts are subtracted a second time.
What happens to snapshots written before the fix?
Scottcjn’s review notes that snapshots written before the change retain the old formula, so a comparison across the fix can show a step. The pull-request record does not specify a backfill or historical-recomputation procedure. Treat that step as a change in calculation unless a separate, documented migration process establishes how older snapshots should be handled.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the fix does—and does not—establish
Pull request #8517 establishes a code-level accounting correction: with the stated status partition, the old formula undercounted the amount represented by locked and completed transfers. It does not establish an observed solvency event, consensus failure, or production loss, nor does it document deployment across all RustChain environments.
The cited DEV Community explanation refers to FEDERATION_BRIDGED_SUPPLY_SPEC.md as a governing document, while the maintainer review says that file is not in the repository. The broader specification and any historical snapshot migration procedure therefore cannot be verified from the cited records. For the implementation change and review details, consult the merged pull request; project context is available in the RustChain repository. A separate technical walkthrough and sample arithmetic appear in Vincent Boulianne’s DEV Community article.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
