Hi Tong, I'm currently investigating the issue and trying to replicate it. I'll give an update when I reach a conclusion.

Hi, I think you are changing the world state and not the ledger itself. Are you storing the database locally (through a volume)? If yes, then the container is reloading CouchDB dataset And if you

There is a finite set of resources you can place an ACL on using the following documentation: https://hyperledger-fabric.readthedocs.io/en/release-1.4/access_control.html To create more

If you have more info, eg. version, it would be easier to get more useful info from community.-- This is my life,but world of us~~

Dear all, In Hyperledger Composer Access Control List is define in a file.acl, Where is the equivalent access control list in Hyperledger Fabric to the one in Composer? Bests,

Hello Team, We have containerized an express app using fabric node SDK to interact with the blockchain network. We have deployed this alongside the fabric network on a single VM. While testing with

see this video: https://youtu.be/KOS5CeP-mNY Programming Hyperledger Fabric youtu.be the resolution is very poor but it contains the steps to repro the issue. From: David Enyeart

Something else must be going on, since what you've described is not possible. New blocks with validated transactions drive the CouchDB state database updates, never the other way around. Watch the

Summary: we created a simple Fabric network that comes with the IBM Blockchain extension and uses CouchDB and one peer and one orderer. we made some chaincode invocation requests and created some data

It was not really a Node SDK limitation but rather a node-gyp issue. We require node-gyp as we use native modules. The latest versions of npm ship with versions of node-gyp which support Python 3.5,

Chris, Here you go! [0] Ry [0] https://github.com/hyperledger/fabric-contract-api-go -- Ry Jones Community Architect, Hyperledger Chat: @rjones

As per the Official Hyperledger Fabric Doc, "The Fabric Node.js SDK requires an iteration of Python 2.7 in order for npm install operations to complete successfully." As per the

The Hyperledger Fabric maintainers are pleased to announce the availability of Fabric v1.4.4! Please see the release notes for the list of enhancements and

Yes we have tried packaging, signing and then installing on each peer. We also confirmed by listing the chaincodes on both the peers and the IDs matched. The IDs also matched in the previous case as

If you run "install" with the package option on two different machines then instantiation can fail due to the mismatch issue. Did you try packaging first and then installing the same package on both

I can see how that is a problem when we are upgrading the chaincode (Hash might have changed due to the timestamp) but we tried installing and instantiating a chaincode with a different name first on

Looks like you were actually not persisting the storage for your peers (ledger, installed chaincode, etc). It seems the orderer was still running so the channel already considered the chaincode to be

Ry, per the approved Fabric RFC [1], please create the following repo https://github.com/awjh-ibm/fabric-contract-api-go [1] https://github.com/hyperledger/fabric-rfcs/pull/13 Thanks,

Sorry for the delayed response! Thank you Gari and Jean-Gaël. This is really helpful clearing my doubt!

Hello everybody, I’d like to propose a new feature ‘block archiving’ for Hyperledger Fabric. We are working on this block archiving project which is listed under Hyperledger Labs