Closed ybeetle8 closed 5 months ago
Hi @ybeetle8!
You are right, and this is feature, not a bug.
Since the Jubilee, ordinals already inscribed, being re-inscribed are tolerated by the consensus, making re-inscriptions more common than before.
To minimize the amount of transfers in the (already heavy) payloads, we are now informing that "an inscribed satoshi is being transferred", instead of having n
transfers for the n
inscriptions attached to a given satoshi.
I hope it'll make sense!
hi @lgalabru in this case, I see inscription_id field is replaced with ordinal_number in creating table https://github.com/hirosystems/ordhook/blob/2a4ce1ff6eddba6b3dca9a859733e9f0fa3190d3/components/ordhook-core/src/db/mod.rs#L109
but for some queries, such as find_all_inscription_transfers, nscription_id and remove_entry_from_inscriptions inscription_id is still used https://github.com/hirosystems/ordhook/blob/2a4ce1ff6eddba6b3dca9a859733e9f0fa3190d3/components/ordhook-core/src/db/mod.rs#L942
it will cause an error, how can I deal with it?
thanks
ok, I think after Jubilee, there is no query transfers by inscription_id, right? @lgalabru
Correct!
I noticed an issue where ordhook v2.1.0 is missing the
inscription_id
field compared to ordhook v2.0.0 when parsing a transaction. Here's a detailed comparison of how each version parses the transaction:Here's the transaction link: https://mempool.space/zh/testnet/tx/71c963a142ec90b0798b7425c6f4e6405e167de9efc701fa49610a47b52f3073
ordhook v2.0.0 parsing output:
ordhook v2.1.0 parsing output:
Clearly, the
inscription_id
field is missing in the output parsed by ordhook v2.1.0.