A bad close offer fails in the wrong place

[dtribble]

Repro

1. In manage vault, Issue a close-vault offer (but don't approve it)
2. In manage vault, withdraw some collateral
3. In wallet, approve the withdrawal offer
4. In wallet, approve the close offer

The close offer will fail, but it does so trying to get a bogus price quote.

Stack in chain

UnhandledPromiseRejectionWarning: (Error#16)
Error#16: priceQuery must return a quote

  at createQuote (packages/zoe/src/contracts/multipoolAutoswap/priceAuthority.js:42:20)
  at mutableTrigger (packages/zoe/src/contractSupport/priceAuthority.js:169:40)
  at Alleged: PriceAuthority.mutableQuoteWhenOutTrigger [as mutableQuoteWhenLT] (packages/zoe/src/contractSupport/priceAuthority.js:202:25)

Error#16 ERROR_NOTE: Rejection from: (Error#17) : 22662 . 0
Nested error under Error#16
  Error#17: Event: 22661.1
  
    at Function.applyMethod (packages/tame-metering/src/tame.js:184:20)
    at meteredConstructor.deliver (packages/SwingSet/src/kernel/liveSlots.js:525:28)
    at eval (packages/SwingSet/src/kernel/vatManager/deliver.js:51:48)
  
Error#16 ERROR_NOTE: Sent as error:liveSlots:v17#70004
(node:11672) PromiseRejectionHandledWarning: Promise rejection was handled asynchronously (rejection id: 7)
(Use `node --trace-warnings ...` to show where the warning was created)
UnhandledPromiseRejectionWarning: (RemoteError(error:liveSlots:v17#70004)#18)
RemoteError(error:liveSlots:v17#70004)#18: priceQuery must return a quote

  at fullRevive (packages/marshal/src/marshal.js:874:43)
  at meteredConstructor.unserialize (packages/marshal/src/marshal.js:954:19)
  at notifyOnePromise (packages/SwingSet/src/kernel/liveSlots.js:597:19)
  at meteredConstructor.notify (packages/SwingSet/src/kernel/liveSlots.js:610:7)
  at eval (packages/SwingSet/src/kernel/vatManager/deliver.js:51:48)

RemoteError(error:liveSlots:v17#70004)#18 ERROR_NOTE: Rejection from: (Error#19) : 22660 . 0
Nested error under RemoteError(error:liveSlots:v17#70004)#18
  Error#19: Event: 22659.1
  
    at Function.applyMethod (packages/tame-metering/src/tame.js:202:19)
    at Proxy.eval (packages/eventual-send/src/E.js:37:126)
    at reschedulePriceCheck (packages/treasury/src/vaultManager.js:123:60)
  
UnhandledPromiseRejectionWarning: (RemoteError(error:liveSlots:v10#70001)#22)
RemoteError(error:liveSlots:v10#70001)#22: Check failed

  at fullRevive (packages/marshal/src/marshal.js:874:43)
  at meteredConstructor.unserialize (packages/marshal/src/marshal.js:954:19)
  at notifyOnePromise (packages/SwingSet/src/kernel/liveSlots.js:597:19)
  at meteredConstructor.notify (packages/SwingSet/src/kernel/liveSlots.js:610:7)
  at eval (packages/SwingSet/src/kernel/vatManager/deliver.js:51:48)

RemoteError(error:liveSlots:v10#70001)#22 ERROR_NOTE: Rejection from: (Error#23) : 24682 . 0
Nested error under RemoteError(error:liveSlots:v10#70001)#22
  Error#23: Event: 24680.2
  
    at Function.applyMethod (packages/tame-metering/src/tame.js:202:19)
    at Proxy.eval (packages/eventual-send/src/E.js:37:126)
    at meteredConstructor.acceptOffer (packages/dapp-svelte-wallet/api/src/lib-wallet.js:998:51)
  
UnhandledPromiseRejectionWarning: (RemoteError(error:liveSlots:v10#70002)#24)
RemoteError(error:liveSlots:v10#70002)#24: Check failed

  at fullRevive (packages/marshal/src/marshal.js:874:43)
  at meteredConstructor.unserialize (packages/marshal/src/marshal.js:954:19)
  at notifyOnePromise (packages/SwingSet/src/kernel/liveSlots.js:597:19)
  at meteredConstructor.notify (packages/SwingSet/src/kernel/liveSlots.js:610:7)
  at eval (packages/SwingSet/src/kernel/vatManager/deliver.js:51:48)

RemoteError(error:liveSlots:v10#70002)#24 ERROR_NOTE: Rejection from: (Error#25) : 24776 . 0
Nested error under RemoteError(error:liveSlots:v10#70002)#24
  Error#25: Event: 24775.1
  
    at Function.applyMethod (packages/tame-metering/src/tame.js:202:19)
    at Proxy.eval (packages/eventual-send/src/E.js:37:126)
    at eval (packages/dapp-svelte-wallet/api/src/lib-wallet.js:467:17)
  

[Tartuffo]

Sam to talk to @dckc and/or @Chris-Hibbert about this.

[dckc]

@samsiegart are you able to reproduce it?

[samsiegart]

@samsiegart are you able to reproduce it?

It seems to fail in the expected way now:

2022-02-09T01:11:40.966Z SwingSet: ls: v22: Error#1: Offer safety was violated by the proposed allocation: { Collateral: { brand: Object [Alleged: LINK brand] {}, value: 4900000000000000000n }, RUN: { brand: Object [Alleged: RUN brand] {}, value: 0n } } . Proposal was { exit: { onDemand: null }, give: { RUN: { brand: Object [Alleged: RUN brand] {}, value: 89406516n } }, want: { Collateral: { brand: Object [Alleged: LINK brand] {}, value: 5000000000000000000n } } }
2022-02-09T01:11:40.967Z SwingSet: ls: v22: Error: Offer safety was violated by the proposed allocation: (an object). Proposal was (an object)

Makes sense since I wanted 5 LINK to close the vault, but I only had 4.9 left after withdrawing 0.1. However, the offer in the wallet API showed a status of "accept", which seems incorrect. I would think it would be "rejected" https://github.com/Agoric/agoric-sdk/blob/master/packages/wallet/api/src/lib-wallet.js#L1118

[samsiegart]

@dckc @michaelfig I tried logging here and looks like the contract is still returning payouts (maybe 0-payments?) https://github.com/Agoric/agoric-sdk/blob/master/packages/wallet/api/src/lib-wallet.js#L630

The wallet uses whether or not there's payouts to mark the offer as accepted or rejected. Should we be checking in the wallet if those payouts are 0, or change the contract to throw instead of returning a payout in this case?

[Chris-Hibbert]

From Zoe's and the contract's point of view, the request shouldn't throw. Satisfying the user's give condition is a normal outcome. The wallet should be prepared for this. If the payments are returned, the wallet should show the user that the offer was refunded or some such. Does the wallet figure out that the user's payment was returned and deposit it to a reasonable choice of purses?

[samsiegart]

Does the wallet figure out that the user's payment was returned and deposit it to a reasonable choice of purses?

Yes, the purse balances are the same before and after the offer. I don't think accepted is a good label when you didn't get what you wanted, and figured rejected would be appropriate. Maybe related to #4360

[michaelfig]

I don't think accepted is a good label when you didn't get what you wanted, and figured rejected would be appropriate.

rejected sounds too bad. I would say refunded.

[samsiegart]

@Chris-Hibbert @michaelfig Does it seem fair to close this in favor of Agoric/agoric-sdk#4360?

[Chris-Hibbert]

Does it seem fair to close this in favor of Agoric/agoric-sdk#4360?

I'm fine with that.

[erights]

Keep in mind that one possible outcome is that the user got >= what they wanted and >= what they gave.

[erights]

@Chris-Hibbert @michaelfig Does it seem fair to close this in favor of Agoric/agoric-sdk#4360?

Me too.

[samsiegart]

Closing to defer to Agoric/agoric-sdk#4360 as discussed

[samsiegart]

@erights You mean ">= what they wanted wanted and <= (as opposed to >=) what they gave" right?

[erights]

No. I was pointing out they might get both, and more.

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:47 AM Samuel Siegart ***@***.***> wrote: @erights <https://github.com/erights> You mean ">= what they wanted wanted and <= (as opposed to >=) what they gave" right? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#17 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACC3THWXZM4S5D5DJFYVYDU2U4RZANCNFSM42QEGW2Q> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- Cheers, --MarkM