Payments not being made/processed to codius host upon uploading smart contract

#1

Have finally got round to creating a smart contract, for testing purposes on my codiushost. Pod uploads fine and runs on the codiushost, works and runs for the designated period of time. Great! I thought.

The issue is payment from the local instance of moneyd where contract has been made and uploaded from is not being passed onto the codiushost wallet.

following error displayed at local end, instance of moneyd:
2019-03-22T18:16:45.005Z connector:app info connector ready (republic attitude). address=g.kd1jm1.ilsp.master version=22.3.1
2019-03-22T18:22:48.529Z connector:route-broadcaster warn not sending/receiving routes for peer, set sendRoutes/receiveRoutes to override. accountId=parent

I have my local instance of moneyd connected to one of my ilp connectors and my codiushost is attached to my other ilp connector. So its almost like a closed loop, it should flow thru from one to the other I would have thought.

What could be the possible issues with the payment not being processed/forwarded.
I have checked that payment channels have been created and all are listed on each entity when “moneyd xrp:info” is run on all hosts concerned.

When pod uploaded I did notice that there were no micropayments going out of the local moneyd instance.

Strange that I can upload a contract, and it run for the designated period of time ( 5 minutes and 30 minutes respectively), without any payment being received.

1 Like
#2

When you say “without any payment being received,” what do you mean? If the upload was successful then the Interledger payment happened, so is it just that settlement didn’t occur?

The ‘not sending routes’ message warning is intentional. Moneyd doesn’t need to participate in the routing protocol because it only has a single uplink. I think we should patch moneyd so it doesn’t display as an error though, because lots of people have assumed that it’s an error.

2019-03-22T18:22:48.529Z connector:route-broadcaster warn not sending/receiving routes for peer, set sendRoutes/receiveRoutes to override. accountId=parent
#3

Thank you Ben for the quick reply. No payment has been received at codiushost end.

There is a log of a payment leaving the originators account and going to connector 1 but nothing showing going from connector 1 to 2 and ultimately the codiushost wallet.

I know this seems a bit of a long winded way to involve 4 seperate wallets. But it seems a good way to test if my setup is actually working and all processes functioning, from start point to end user??

#4

Are you referring to Interledger payments or XRP payments/paychan balance updates?

#5

Payments are not flowing from originator wallet to enduser wallet, via 2 ilp connectors.

Using localhost:7770 getting rejection error F99 in statistics eg:
rejected F99 g.kd1jm1.ilsp.master.local.eCWQ32Dft…peer XRP 9 3

and in pm2 logs on connector:
0|connecto | 2019-03-22T19:51:03.544Z ilp-plugin-xrp-server:debug incoming ws closed. error= 1006

Same F99 error code and error=1006 on both connectors.

I take it there must be some config error on my connectors for ilsp plugin.

Which is why the initial payment is not ending up at its final destination, ie the codiushost wallet.

Will have dig more thoroughly thru the logs over the weekend.

#6

Update
It looks like I had multiple instances of a .moneyd.json locally in various locations??

Have cleaned up all instances of this, closed the payment channel locally and reset up moneyd and connected to the same ilp-connector with a new payment channel. All ok.

Uploaded several contracts to codiushost of various time scales. Payment flows seem to be flowing thru the various wallets, correctly. I will continue to monitor and upload contracts thru the week to see how it goes.

What seems disconcerting is the fact that I am getting a lot of rejections showing up when viewing statistics in moneyd-gui, but also fulfilled in ilsp?

#7

Just to throw my 2 drops in here: it’s not just the warning, it’s the prevalence of the warning. See screenshot:

#8

See Ben’s reply earlier in the thread. Apparently that’s normal activity @shaikezr.