bug: tx sweep failing on already-spent nullifier

[aubrika]

Describe the bug

It seems tx sweep is currently broken, as reported here in Discord:

https://discord.com/channels/824484045370818580/1172730682783563826/1248651765323137178

[zbuc]

I am able to tx sweep (mostly) successfully, however @conorsch and I noted that there seems to possibly be intermittent view server corruption leading to errors like this and SCT hash mismatches.

I say (mostly) successfully because I did get a different error...

# truncated: 24 successful sweeps

building sweep 24 of 25
building transaction [9 actions, 9 proofs]...
finished proving in 3.136 seconds [9 actions, 9 proofs, 4405 bytes]
broadcasting transaction and awaiting confirmation...
transaction broadcast successfully: 52cf05c1d14fa7791f44f6e24596376262a884e6718b97220c2dbc019bb4c326
transaction confirmed and detected: 52cf05c1d14fa7791f44f6e24596376262a884e6718b97220c2dbc019bb4c326
building sweep 0 of 3
building transaction [11 actions, 11 proofs]...
finished proving in 3.587 seconds [11 actions, 11 proofs, 5459 bytes]
broadcasting transaction and awaiting confirmation...
transaction broadcast successfully: bb88032a4eed65564973dd9aa7956113bf49f6469ca25d781534517f5bfecb76
transaction confirmed and detected: bb88032a4eed65564973dd9aa7956113bf49f6469ca25d781534517f5bfecb76 @ height 434808
building sweep 1 of 3
building transaction [9 actions, 9 proofs]...
Error: status: InvalidArgument, message: "Note commitment missing", details: [], metadata: MetadataMap { headers: {"content-type": "application/grpc"} }

I then ran tx sweep again and it was fully successful:

building sweep 0 of 2
building transaction [9 actions, 9 proofs]...
finished proving in 3.187 seconds [9 actions, 9 proofs, 4405 bytes]
broadcasting transaction and awaiting confirmation...
transaction broadcast successfully: 992cff273d9f7183b78a48ec7556d4c92b6a277cfbf091fa030495c1c7f755fb
transaction confirmed and detected: 992cff273d9f7183b78a48ec7556d4c92b6a277cfbf091fa030495c1c7f755fb
building sweep 1 of 2
building transaction [9 actions, 9 proofs]...
finished proving in 3.193 seconds [9 actions, 9 proofs, 4405 bytes]
broadcasting transaction and awaiting confirmation...
transaction broadcast successfully: 69bad14b2cd69a251a908a4ff67d3e0a8263be9f6a59944a42eace9d4ed8952d
transaction confirmed and detected: 69bad14b2cd69a251a908a4ff67d3e0a8263be9f6a59944a42eace9d4ed8952d @ height 434824
building sweep 0 of 1
building transaction [9 actions, 9 proofs]...
finished proving in 3.193 seconds [9 actions, 9 proofs, 4405 bytes]
broadcasting transaction and awaiting confirmation...
transaction broadcast successfully: 06999ae6dd6ba2394618d818e8f360419283cdc0b0b6b0e7d17d1a432e18a041
transaction confirmed and detected: 06999ae6dd6ba2394618d818e8f360419283cdc0b0b6b0e7d17d1a432e18a041 @ height 434825
finished sweeping

[cratelyn]

x-ref #4601

[cratelyn]

#4605 introduced test coverage for this. #4633 disabled that test, due to the issues outlined in #4517. once we have support for an in-memory view service in tests, we can re-enable that.

[cratelyn]

for visibility, cross-posting this comment: #4601 (comment)

[aubrika]

Closed as complete, should be fixed by #4578