|
Re: Question about invokeChaincode api
#fabric-chaincode
Matthew White
Hello;
Can I suggest that you raise an issue on the github hyperledger/fabric-chaincode-java repo?
Though to check that you can call `helloworld()` directly from `invokeChaincode` without having to call invokeChaincode? Pass on the ctx variable, and both methods are then part of the same transaction.
Typically only use invokerChaincode, when you going to a completely different chaincode.
Regards, Matthew.
Matthew B White IBM Blockchain Solutions Architect
Email me at WHITEMAT@...
Find me on StackOverflow, and generally at calanais.me.uk
Note: restricted availability for meetings 14:30 to 17:00 UK Tuesday
IBM United Kingdom Limited, Hursley Park, Winchester, Hampshire, SO21 2JN
"The wrong answers are the ones you go looking for when the right answers stare you in the face" ----- Original message ----- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Question about invokeChaincode api
#fabric-chaincode
BigBang019
Environment: fabric release-2.2
My chaincode named vulnerable is as follows:  When I invoke helloworld directly, it gives me responce "helloworld", everything works fine. But when I invoke invokeChaincode method, it gives me  and chaincode docker container logging is as follows:  It seems like (1) the statement System.out.printf("\n%s\n", chaincodeName) works fine. (2) org.hyperledger.fabric.shim.impl.InvocationStubImpl.invokeChaincode also finds the registered method helloworld, but it encountered another exception half way the invocation. Does anyone met this problem before? Thanks in advance.
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Re: Question about PrivateData Endorsement in Hyperledger Fabric
#fabric-endorser
BigBang019
Hi, thanks for your reply.
I'm using fabric release-2.2, and deployed a test network on a clean environment. I have the following phenomena: (1) When I use cmd docker exec peer0.org1.example.com peer channel getinfo -c mychannel and docker exec peer0.org2.example.com peer channel getinfo -c mychannel, I got the same result, which means there's no state inconsistency. (2) When I change the endorsement policy of the chaincode vulenrable to "OR('Org1MSP.peer','Org2MSP.peer')" everything works fine. Conclusion: If we deploy a chaincode with (1) privatedata config above, (2) endorsement policy like "AND('Org1MSP.peer','Org2MSP.peer')", then this chaincode fail with endorsement conflict. Is this a bug? I haven't get deeper inspection of the reason.
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Re: Question about PrivateData Endorsement in Hyperledger Fabric
#fabric-endorser
David Enyeart
You're right, the private data collection should have nothing to do with that error. That error typically means state is not identical across the peers and therefore the chaincode results do not match. In a production system with load it can be caused by peers at different block heights at time of chaincode execution. If you are seeing it on a system at rest then there may be something wrong with one of your peers. Are you able to reproduce it on a clean environment? Scenario: 1. I have a chaicode named vulnerable with a collection-config as follows: and transaction functions as follows But I didn't give any endorsement policy to this chaincode, which means its endorsement policy are supposed to be ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd Scenario: 1. I have a chaicode named vulnerable with a collection-config as follows:  and transaction functions as follows  But I didn't give any endorsement policy to this chaincode, which means its endorsement policy are supposed to be "MAJORITY Endorsement". 2. Now I deployed a network with 2 Orgs and 1 Peer per Org, i.e. I have 2 peers in total. 3. When I invoke this chaincode through fabric-sdk-go, as follows  It gives me:  I'm really confused, because everything works fine before I add that collection-config. Could you please give any help on this situation? Thanks in advance.
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Question about PrivateData Endorsement in Hyperledger Fabric
#fabric-endorser
BigBang019
Scenario:
1. I have a chaicode named vulnerable with a collection-config as follows:  and transaction functions as follows  But I didn't give any endorsement policy to this chaincode, which means its endorsement policy are supposed to be "MAJORITY Endorsement". 2. Now I deployed a network with 2 Orgs and 1 Peer per Org, i.e. I have 2 peers in total. 3. When I invoke this chaincode through fabric-sdk-go, as follows  It gives me:  I'm really confused, because everything works fine before I add that collection-config. Could you please give any help on this situation? Thanks in advance.
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Re: management of k8s deployed test network
Nikos Karamolegkos
Extending the previous question. How can I use the scripts to deploy a second channel with an other chaincode (the asset-transfer-basic but with an other name in avoid problems in the peers). I tried to channel the ENV TEST_NETWORK_CHANNEL_NAME before creating the channel and then change TEST_NETWORK_CHAINCODE_LABEL before deploying the chaincode. However, during invoke and query the commands stall.
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Re: Question on EVM chaincode on Hyperledger Fabric
Hi, Gourav. I've forwarded this to the Fabric mailing list, which is the best place to get an answer. Ry
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Re: About BCCSP plugin
Yacov
I am aware of companies that use validation plugins to complement the built-in endorsement policy checks because they have an atypical adversary model.
I also think that endorsement plugins are useful for achieving threshold signature orchestration without needing to change Fabric, and I know of companies that have a need for threshold signatures because a strong endorsement policy has a big impact on transaction
size and throughput.
While I know that plugins are not exactly... flexible or easy to use, it is still possible to use them if you are determined enough to have a hand-tailored solution for a problem that no one else will solve for you.
I also don't think we should've removed the BCCSP plugins.
Until Go 1.17 where we had a clash between plugin implementation and dependencies, they did not carry any maintenance burden.
Regards,
Yacov
From: fabric@... <fabric@...> on behalf of David Enyeart <enyeart@...>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 11:04 PM To: Ry Jones <rjones@...> Cc: community-architects@... <community-architects@...>; fabric <fabric@...>; twg-china@... <twg-china@...>; 袁怿 <yy19902439@...> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Hyperledger Fabric] About BCCSP plugin The work item that removed BCCSP plugin support explains the rationale
and points to a Go issue about plugin restrictions: https://jira.hyperledger.org/browse/FAB-15338 In a nutshell, nobody was using them and while they sound good on the surface,
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
The work item that removed BCCSP plugin support explains the rationale and points to a Go issue about plugin restrictions:
https://jira.hyperledger.org/browse/FAB-15338 Hi, Sam. I've added the Fabric list so that the other maintainers can see it. Ry On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 7:09 AM 袁怿 <yy19902439@...> wrote: ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd Hi, Sam. I've added the Fabric list so that the other maintainers can see it. Ry On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 7:09 AM 袁怿 <yy19902439@...> wrote: Hi fabric maintainers and David, I found two interested commits in fabric history. hyperledger/fabric@01c50ef hyperledger/fabric@0cde017#diff-62806c7dcf924402565d4ef558b602db6197cb4b1075bacb8514f95ca073392d mapping to jira tickets https://jira.hyperledger.org/browse/FAB-6189 and https://jira.hyperledger.org/browse/FAB-15340 with above things. Which means in historical, we support fabric BCCSP running in plugin mode and may I know the reason we removed BCCSP plugin mode support?
-- Ry Jones Community Architect, Hyperledger Chat: @rjones Calendar
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Re: About BCCSP plugin
David Enyeart
The work item that removed BCCSP plugin support explains the rationale and points to a Go issue about plugin restrictions: https://jira.hyperledger.org/browse/FAB-15338 Hi, Sam. I've added the Fabric list so that the other maintainers can see it. Ry On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 7:09 AM 袁怿 <yy19902439@...> wrote: ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd Hi, Sam. I've added the Fabric list so that the other maintainers can see it. Ry
On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 7:09 AM 袁怿 <yy19902439@...> wrote: Hi fabric maintainers and David, I found two interested commits in fabric history. hyperledger/fabric@01c50ef hyperledger/fabric@0cde017#diff-62806c7dcf924402565d4ef558b602db6197cb4b1075bacb8514f95ca073392d mapping to jira tickets https://jira.hyperledger.org/browse/FAB-6189 and https://jira.hyperledger.org/browse/FAB-15340 with above things. Which means in historical, we support fabric BCCSP running in plugin mode and may I know the reason we removed BCCSP plugin mode support?
-- Ry Jones Community Architect, Hyperledger Chat: @rjones Calendar
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Re: About BCCSP plugin
Hi, Sam. I've added the Fabric list so that the other maintainers can see it. Ry
On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 7:09 AM 袁怿 <yy19902439@...> wrote:
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Now: Private Chaincode Lab - 12/14/2021
#cal-notice
fabric@lists.hyperledger.org Calendar <noreply@...>
Private Chaincode Lab When: Where: Organizer: Marcus Brandenburger bur@... Description:
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Re: Urgent: problems with starting local fabric(2.x) network for dev mode using docker containers
#fabric
#configtxgen
#fabric-peer
#fabric-orderer
Matthew White
Hello; Have you tried using the `fabric-samples` test-network? I'd be concerned if there's something wrong in the initial setup that is causing later issues. The error suggests to me that the peer still thinks this chaincode is going to be used in non-dev mode.
Matthew White
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Re: Number of channels
Tsvetan Georgiev
Hello, Older discussion on that topic: In one of the threads above David Enyeart shared a nice section regarding PDC vs channel: You have to consider some numbers when dealing with the ordering service cluster and number of channels per orderer: The management of the channels may bring overhead. However it is important to consider the functional requirements first and then decide on the technical model. Note that since HLF 2.x version implicit PDC is available: https://hyperledger-fabric.readthedocs.io/en/latest/private-data-arch.html#implicit-private-data-collections It is mostly about your functional / privacy requirements. Technically speaking I see no problem scaling to 8 channels (ledgers) if your business will benefit from it. Channel management may be a maintenance concern depending on how often you need to do updates (i.e. deploy chaincodes, change policies, etc). However if regular updates are required we usually automate the steps anyways. Best Regards,
---- On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 05:09:40 -0500 J K via lists.hyperledger.org <jsjkj434=yahoo.com@...> wrote ----
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Updated Event: Hyperledger Project Quarterly Update Due
#tsc-project-update
#cal-invite
fabric@lists.hyperledger.org Calendar <noreply@...>
Hyperledger Project Quarterly Update Due #tsc-project-update When: Organizer: community-architects@... Description:
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Re: Fabric with Open Tracing
袁怿
Hi Yacov and everyone. I had created a new pr, as a update/upgrade for https://github.com/hyperledger/fabric-rfcs/pull/42 With link below: At PSWG meeting on next Tuesday, we are going to have a discuss related with it. If you interested with this topic, welcome to join us. On 11/17/2021 18:49，袁怿<yy19902439@...> wrote：
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Number of channels
J K
Hey Folks, I want to know what is the optimum number of channels which a small network can have? What considerations shall I take to decide these? I have a under-10 member network with around 2k transactions per day in the network. (Currently have 3 channels & like to scale to 8). I have read that due to maintenance overhead channels are not advisable rather private data collections shall be considered. Can someone please shed some light on this. Cheers!
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Re: Urgent: problems with starting local fabric(2.x) network for dev mode using docker containers
#fabric
#configtxgen
#fabric-peer
#fabric-orderer
David Enyeart
You will get the Approach1 error if the signer of the create channel transaction ("peer channel create" caller) isn't an admin of a consortium member. Hi Team, I am a Software Engineer in Blockchain Platform team at Oracle. We are facing an issue below with running fabric in local environment. We are trying to build a setup for starting a fabric-network locally with fabric-2.3/2.4 containers ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd Hi Team, I am a Software Engineer in Blockchain Platform team at Oracle. We are facing an issue below with running fabric in local environment. We are trying to build a setup for starting a fabric-network locally with fabric-2.3/2.4 containers and starting the peer in dev mode for debugging the chaincodes. Below are the simple configurations for the network that we are building for. 1) 1 Organization 2) 1 Peer in dev mode 3) 1 Channel We have been facing multiple issues in building this setup up with Fabric 2.x We have considered below few points after reading the documents on running peer and chaincode in dev mode and using the test network https://hyperledger-fabric.readthedocs.io/en/release-2.3/peer-chaincode-devmode.html https://hyperledger-fabric.readthedocs.io/en/release-2.2/test_network.html 1) Starting up peer in dev-mode is requires passing '--peer-chaincodedev=true' 2) TLS should not be enabled on the peer for dev-mode. 3) Orderer configuration in configtx.yml for generating genesisblock for orderer in solo mode 4) Channel configuration in configtx.yml for generating channel configuration file (ch1.tx) We have tried below two approaches to build this network in docker containers and both have their own set of problems Approach1: Trimming down and editing the configurations for test-network which is provided with fabric-samples. In this approach, we are trying to edit the docker-compose-test-net.yaml file and configtx.yaml file in the test-network according to the requirements and also according the docs for running chaincode in dev mode. Below are the edited files. We have included two new profiles into the configtx, which we use to generate genesis.block and channel.tx files. Thes profiles are namely SampleDevModeSolo, SampleSingleMSPChannel, These are inspired from the configtx.yaml provided under sampleconfig that is used in docs for 'running peer and chaincode in dev mode'. This is done because of multiple reasons 1) when we disable TLS and use the orderer in raft mode it does not work, we start getting errors that TLS is required. 2) Also we did not find any example of orderer type etcdraft getting used in dev-setup. 3) In the default configtx.yaml the consortium configuration was also not present, which was giving us some errors as well. Therefore we pulled in these two profiles from sampleconfig to test-network, and edited them accordingly. Steps that we are following to build the network and createChannel. 1. ./network.sh up with the compose file to bring up the containers. 2. Using configtxgen to create genesis block configtxgen -profile SampleDevModeSolo -channelID syschannel -configPath $FABRIC_CFG_PATH -outputBlock $(pwd)/configtx/genesis.block 3. Using configtxgen to create channel.tx configtxgen -channelID mychannel -outputCreateChannelTx ./configtx/channel.tx -profile SampleSingleMSPChannel -configPath $FABRIC_CFG_PATH 4. Running below command from the peer container to create the channel. export CORE_PEER_LOCALMSPID=Org1MSP export CORE_PEER_MSPCONFIGPATH=/etc/hyperledger/msp/users/Admin@.../msp (Locations are mounted on peer container) peer channel create -o orderer.example.com:7050 -c mychannel -f /etc/hyperledger/configtx/channel.tx In Step4 we are hitting below issue. "Error: got unexpected status: BAD_REQUEST -- error validating channel creation transaction for new channel 'mychannel', could not successfully apply update to template configuration: error authorizing update: error validating DeltaSet: policy for [Group] /Channel/Application not satisfied: implicit policy evaluation failed - 0 sub-policies were satisfied, but this policy requires 1 of the 'Admins' sub-policies to be satisfied" We have tried changing the configurations in many ways but we are still stuck on this issue. Could you please take a look at our cofigtx.yaml file attached and docker-test-net file. Are we missing any configurations in these ? Approach2: We followed the docs for 'running peer and chaincode in dev mode' and started to build docker-compose to bring up the containers for peer and orderer. We have also edited the configtx.yaml regarding listen addresses so that containers can talk to each other. Below are the steps that we followed. 1. docker compose up to bring the network up 2. Using configtxgen to create genesis block configtxgen -profile SampleDevModeSolo -channelID syschannel -configPath $FABRIC_CFG_PATH -outputBlock $(pwd)/configtx/genesis.block 3. Using configtxgen to create channel.tx configtxgen -channelID mychannel -outputCreateChannelTx ./configtx/channel.tx -profile SampleSingleMSPChannel -configPath $FABRIC_CFG_PATH 4. peer channel create -o orderer.example.com:7050 -c ch1 -f /etc/hyperledger/configtx/ch1.tx 5. peer channel join -b ch1.block 6. Started the chaindode, and it was able to register with the peer. we got success log for chaincode registration. 7. peer lifecycle chaincode approveformyorg -o orderer.example.com:7050 --channelID ch1 --name GoCheck1 --version 1.0 --sequence 1 --init-required --signature-policy "OR ('SampleOrg.member')" --package-id GoCheck1:1.0 8. peer lifecycle chaincode checkcommitreadiness -o orderer.example.com:7050 --channelID ch1 --name GoCheck1 --version 1.0 --sequence 1 --init-required --signature-policy "OR ('SampleOrg.member')" 9. peer lifecycle chaincode commit -o orderer.example.com:7050 --channelID ch1 --name chGo1 --version 1.0 --sequence 1 --init-required --signature-policy "OR ('SampleOrg.member')" --peerAddresses peer0.org1.example.com:7051 10. But, after above steps when we invoke the chaincode using command "peer chaincode invoke -o orderer.example.com:7050 -C ch1 -n GoCheck1 -c '{"Args":["Init"]}' --isInit". We hit below issue. "Error: endorsement failure during invoke. response: status:500 message:"error in simulation: failed to execute transaction ab60ed335f58830a247fad5dda4bc7c7faf0f84c15dce416d655170240c2fae4: could not launch chaincode GoCheck1:1.0: error building chaincode: error building image: failed to get chaincode package for external build: could not get legacy chaincode package 'GoCheck1:1.0': open /var/hyperledger/production/chaincodes/GoCheck1.1.0: no such file or directory" Do we still need to install the chaincode in the peer, if we are running the peer in dev mode inside a docker container ? The same steps when we are running peer and orderer and chaincode in seperate processes they work fine, but not in container. This is an urgent issue for us. Could you please check our configs for this approach and suggest us if we are missing something in the configs or is there any better way to approach this problem. Thanks Avinash Uttav
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Re: Urgent: problems with starting local fabric(2.x) network for dev mode using docker containers
#fabric
#configtxgen
#fabric-peer
#fabric-orderer
To check the logs I use the logspout. An easy way is to execute the script monitordock.sh inside the commercial paper tutorial. I use it to show the docker logs when I show something about Hyperledger (when teaching someone about hlf). You will be able to see output from the docker network. Take care if you put the environment with log status set to debug. Em sex., 10 de dez. de 2021 às 16:02, Chris Gabriel <alaskadd@...> escreveu:
--
David Reis @davidfaulstich (Instagram) @davidfdr (Github)
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Re: Urgent: problems with starting local fabric(2.x) network for dev mode using docker containers
#fabric
#configtxgen
#fabric-peer
#fabric-orderer
Chris Gabriel <alaskadd@...>
Hi Avinash,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
A possible workaround is to use the IBM Blockchain extension for VSCode and view the output dialog. Or you could just use that as it is well documented and you avoid reinventing the wheel. best, Chris
On Dec 10, 2021, at 10:09 AM, avinash.uttav@... wrote:
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Urgent: problems with starting local fabric(2.x) network for dev mode using docker containers
#fabric
#configtxgen
#fabric-peer
#fabric-orderer
avinash.uttav@...
Hi Team,
I am a Software Engineer in Blockchain Platform team at Oracle. We are facing an issue below with running fabric in local environment.
We are trying to build a setup for starting a fabric-network locally with fabric-2.3/2.4 containers and starting the peer in dev mode for debugging the chaincodes.
Below are the simple configurations for the network that we are building for.
1) 1 Organization
2) 1 Peer in dev mode
3) 1 Channel
We have been facing multiple issues in building this setup up with Fabric 2.x
We have considered below few points after reading the documents on running peer and chaincode in dev mode and using the test network
https://hyperledger-fabric.readthedocs.io/en/release-2.3/peer-chaincode-devmode.html
https://hyperledger-fabric.readthedocs.io/en/release-2.2/test_network.html
1) Starting up peer in dev-mode is requires passing '--peer-chaincodedev=true'
2) TLS should not be enabled on the peer for dev-mode.
3) Orderer configuration in configtx.yml for generating genesisblock for orderer in solo mode
4) Channel configuration in configtx.yml for generating channel configuration file (ch1.tx)
We have tried below two approaches to build this network in docker containers and both have their own set of problems
Approach1:
Trimming down and editing the configurations for test-network which is provided with fabric-samples.
In this approach, we are trying to edit the docker-compose-test-net.yaml file and configtx.yaml file in the test-network according to the requirements and also according the docs for running chaincode in dev mode.
Below are the edited files.
We have included two new profiles into the configtx, which we use to generate genesis.block and channel.tx files. Thes profiles are namely SampleDevModeSolo, SampleSingleMSPChannel,
These are inspired from the configtx.yaml provided under sampleconfig that is used in docs for 'running peer and chaincode in dev mode'.
This is done because of multiple reasons
1) when we disable TLS and use the orderer in raft mode it does not work, we start getting errors that TLS is required.
2) Also we did not find any example of orderer type etcdraft getting used in dev-setup.
3) In the default configtx.yaml the consortium configuration was also not present, which was giving us some errors as well.
Therefore we pulled in these two profiles from sampleconfig to test-network, and edited them accordingly.
Steps that we are following to build the network and createChannel.
1. ./network.sh up with the compose file to bring up the containers.
2. Using configtxgen to create genesis block
configtxgen -profile SampleDevModeSolo -channelID syschannel -configPath $FABRIC_CFG_PATH -outputBlock $(pwd)/configtx/genesis.block
3. Using configtxgen to create channel.tx
configtxgen -channelID mychannel -outputCreateChannelTx ./configtx/channel.tx -profile SampleSingleMSPChannel -configPath $FABRIC_CFG_PATH
4. Running below command from the peer container to create the channel.
export CORE_PEER_LOCALMSPID=Org1MSP
export CORE_PEER_MSPCONFIGPATH=/etc/hyperledger/msp/users/Admin@.../msp (Locations are mounted on peer container)
peer channel create -o orderer.example.com:7050 -c mychannel -f /etc/hyperledger/configtx/channel.tx
In Step4 we are hitting below issue.
"Error: got unexpected status: BAD_REQUEST -- error validating channel creation transaction for new channel 'mychannel', could not successfully apply update to template configuration: error authorizing update: error validating DeltaSet: policy for [Group] /Channel/Application not satisfied: implicit policy evaluation failed - 0 sub-policies were satisfied, but this policy requires 1 of the 'Admins' sub-policies to be satisfied"
We have tried changing the configurations in many ways but we are still stuck on this issue.
Could you please take a look at our cofigtx.yaml file attached and docker-test-net file.
Are we missing any configurations in these ?
Approach2:
We followed the docs for 'running peer and chaincode in dev mode' and started to build docker-compose to bring up the containers for peer and orderer.
We have also edited the configtx.yaml regarding listen addresses so that containers can talk to each other.
Below are the steps that we followed.
1. docker compose up to bring the network up
2. Using configtxgen to create genesis block
configtxgen -profile SampleDevModeSolo -channelID syschannel -configPath $FABRIC_CFG_PATH -outputBlock $(pwd)/configtx/genesis.block
3. Using configtxgen to create channel.tx
configtxgen -channelID mychannel -outputCreateChannelTx ./configtx/channel.tx -profile SampleSingleMSPChannel -configPath $FABRIC_CFG_PATH
4. peer channel create -o orderer.example.com:7050 -c ch1 -f /etc/hyperledger/configtx/ch1.tx
5. peer channel join -b ch1.block
6. Started the chaindode, and it was able to register with the peer. we got success log for chaincode registration.
7. peer lifecycle chaincode approveformyorg -o orderer.example.com:7050 --channelID ch1 --name GoCheck1 --version 1.0 --sequence 1 --init-required --signature-policy "OR ('SampleOrg.member')" --package-id GoCheck1:1.0
8. peer lifecycle chaincode checkcommitreadiness -o orderer.example.com:7050 --channelID ch1 --name GoCheck1 --version 1.0 --sequence 1 --init-required --signature-policy "OR ('SampleOrg.member')"
9. peer lifecycle chaincode commit -o orderer.example.com:7050 --channelID ch1 --name chGo1 --version 1.0 --sequence 1 --init-required --signature-policy "OR ('SampleOrg.member')" --peerAddresses peer0.org1.example.com:7051
10. But, after above steps when we invoke the chaincode using command "peer chaincode invoke -o orderer.example.com:7050 -C ch1 -n GoCheck1 -c '{"Args":["Init"]}' --isInit".
We hit below issue.
"Error: endorsement failure during invoke. response: status:500 message:"error in simulation: failed to execute transaction ab60ed335f58830a247fad5dda4bc7c7faf0f84c15dce416d655170240c2fae4: could not
launch chaincode GoCheck1:1.0: error building chaincode: error building image: failed to get chaincode package for external build: could not get legacy chaincode package 'GoCheck1:1.0': open /var/hyperledger/production/chaincodes/GoCheck1.1.0: no such file or directory"
Do we still need to install the chaincode in the peer, if we are running the peer in dev mode inside a docker container ?
The same steps when we are running peer and orderer and chaincode in seperate processes they work fine, but not in container.
This is an urgent issue for us. Could you please check our configs for this approach and suggest us if we are missing something in the configs or is there any better way to approach this problem.
Thanks
Avinash Uttav
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
"BigBang019" ---12/15/2021 07:50:47 AM---*Scenario* : 1. I have a chaicode named *vulnerable* with a *collection-config* as follows:
"Ry
Jones" ---12/14/2021 01:18:53 PM---Hi, Sam. I've added the Fabric list so that the other maintainers can see it.
"Ry Jones" ---12/14/2021 01:18:53 PM---Hi, Sam. I've added the Fabric list so that the other maintainers can see it.
avinash.uttav---12/10/2021 11:09:40 AM---Hi Team, I am a Software Engineer in Blockchain Platform team at Oracle. We are facing an issue belo