Bounty
Earn tokens for your contributions.
Posts
5+15
Expert Q&AXavier.eth313ForSuiJun 27, 2025Sui Transaction Failing: Objects Reserved for Another Transaction
I'm encountering a persistent JsonRpcError when trying to execute transactions on Sui. The error indicates that objects are reserved for another transaction, even though I've implemented sequential transaction processing with delays. JsonRpcError: Failed to sign transaction by a quorum of validators because one or more of its objects is reserved for another transaction. Other transactions locking these objects: AV7coSQHWg5vN3S47xada6UiZGW54xxUNhRv1QUPqWK (stake 33.83) 0x1c20f15cbe780ee7586a2df90c1ab70861ca77a15970bea8702a8cf97bd3eed9 0x1c20f15cbe780ee7586a2df90c1ab70861ca77a15970bea8702a8cf97bd3eed9 0x1c20f15cbe780ee7586a2df90c1ab70861ca77a15970bea8702a8cf97bd3eed9 I've tried: Sequential transaction execution (waiting for previous transaction to complete) Added 3-second delays between transactions And still getting the same error consistently. Using Sui RPC for transaction submission. The same object ID appears multiple times in the lock list. Error occurs even with careful transaction sequencing. What causes objects to be "reserved" for other transactions? How can I properly check if an object is available before using it in a transaction? Are there best practices for handling object locks in Sui? Could this be related to transaction finality timing? Has anyone encountered this issue before? Any insights on proper object management in Sui transactions would be greatly appreciated!
- Sui
- Transaction Processing
- Move
24+15
Expert Q&AXavier.eth313ForSuiJun 17, 2025How do ability constraints interact with dynamic fields in heterogeneous collections?
I'm building a marketplace that needs to handle multiple asset types with different ability requirements, and I've hit some fundamental questions about Move's type system. I want to store different asset types in the same collection, but they have different abilities: Regular NFTs: key + store (transferable) Soulbound tokens: key only (non-transferable) Custom assets with transfer restrictions public struct Marketplace has key { id: UID, listings: Bag, // Want to store different asset types here } // This works for transferable assets public fun list_transferable( marketplace: &mut Marketplace, asset: T, price: u64 ) { /* ... */ } // But how to handle soulbound assets? public fun list_soulbound( // No store ability marketplace: &mut Marketplace, asset_ref: &T, // Can only take reference price: u64 ) { /* How do I store metadata about this? */ } Key Questions: Ability Requirements: When using dynamic_field::add(), does V always need store at compile time? Can wrapper types work around this? Heterogeneous Storage: Can a single Bag store objects with different ability sets (key + store + copy vs key + store), and handle them differently at runtime? Type Safety: Since dynamic fields perform type erasure, how do I maintain type safety when retrieving values? What's the pattern for storing type metadata? Witness Pattern: How do ability constraints work with phantom types? Can I store Asset and Asset in the same collection and extract type info later? Building a system where NFTs, soulbound tokens, and restricted assets all need marketplace functionality but with different transfer semantics. I’ve tried wrapper types, multiple collections per ability set, separate type metadata storage. Each has tradeoffs between type safety, gas costs, and complexity.
- Sui
- Architecture
04Best Answer+10
Expert Q&AForSuiMay 29, 2025Why does BCS require exact field order for deserialization when Move structs have named fields?
Why does BCS require exact field order for deserialization when Move structs have named fields? I've been diving deep into BCS encoding/decoding in Move, particularly for cross-chain communication and off-chain data processing. While working through the examples in the Sui Move documentation, I encountered some behavior that seems counterintuitive and I'm trying to understand the underlying design decisions. According to the BCS specification, "there are no structs in BCS (since there are no types); the struct simply defines the order in which fields are serialized." This means when deserializing, we must use peel_* functions in the exact same order as the struct field definition. My Specific Questions: Design Rationale: Why does BCS require exact field order matching when Move structs have named fields? Wouldn't it be more robust to serialize field names alongside values, similar to JSON or other self-describing formats? Generic Type Interaction: The docs mention that "types containing generic type fields can be parsed up to the first generic type field." Consider this structure: struct ComplexObject has drop, copy { id: ID, owner: address, metadata: Metadata, generic_data: T, more_metadata: String, another_generic: U } How exactly does partial deserialization work here? Can I deserialize up to more_metadata and ignore both generic fields, or does the first generic field (generic_data) completely block further deserialization? Cross-Language Consistency: When using the @mysten/bcs JavaScript library to serialize data that will be consumed by Move contracts, what happens if: I accidentally reorder fields in the JavaScript object? The Move struct definition changes field order in a contract upgrade? I have nested structs with their own generic parameters? Practical Implications: In production systems, how do teams handle BCS schema evolution? Do you version your BCS schemas, or is the expectation that struct field order is immutable once deployed?
- Sui
- Move
53Best Answer+10
Expert Q&AForMoveMar 11, 2025Sui Move vs Aptos Move - What is the difference?
Sui Move and Aptos Move - two prominent implementations of the Move programming language. While both are rooted in the same foundational principles, they have diverged significantly in design, execution, and ecosystem development. To better understand their differences, we need to uncover some of their key aspects: How do their runtimes differ? Both Sui and Aptos implement their own custom Move virtual machines (VMs). How does this impact performance, scalability, and developer experience? For instance: Does Sui's runtime optimize for parallel execution differently than Aptos'? Are there notable differences in transaction lifecycle management or gas models? What are the differences between their standard libraries? The Move standard library is a critical component for building smart contracts. However, Sui and Aptos have forked their implementations, leading to divergence: Are there modules or functions unique to one implementation but absent in the other? How do these differences affect common use cases like token creation, NFTs, or decentralized finance (DeFi)? How does data storage differ between them? One of the most significant distinctions lies in how Sui and Aptos handle data storage: Sui uses an object-centric model, where each object has its own ownership and permissions. Aptos, on the other hand, retains a more traditional account-based model similar to Ethereum. How does this impact state management, composability, and gas efficiency? Is it fair to say that Aptos is closer to EVM while Sui is closer to SVM? Some developers argue that Aptos' account-based architecture resembles Ethereum's EVM, while Sui's object-centric approach aligns more closely with Solana's SVM. Do you agree with this analogy? Why or why not? How does this architectural choice influence developer ergonomics and application design? Are there universal packages working for both Sui Move and Aptos Move? Given their shared origins, it would be ideal if some libraries or tools were interoperable across both ecosystems. Are there any existing universal packages or frameworks that work seamlessly on both platforms? If not, what are the main barriers to achieving compatibility? Can one of them be transpiled into another? If a project is built on Sui Move, could it theoretically be transpiled to run on Aptos Move, or vice versa? What are the technical challenges involved in such a process? Are there tools or compilers currently available to facilitate this kind of migration?
- Move
21Best Answer+10
Expert Q&AForSuiMar 05, 2025Multiple Source Verification Errors" in Sui Move Module Publications - Automated Error Resolution
Developers working with Sui Move frequently encounter issues related to "Multiple source verification errors found" when attempting to publish or upgrade modules. These errors occur due to mismatches between local dependencies and their on-chain counterparts, leading to failed publications and deployment challenges. Below is a consolidated example of the errors developers face: Failed to publish the Move module(s), reason: [warning] Multiple source verification errors found: Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002::Sui::vec_set Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002::Sui::vec_map Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001::MoveStdlib::bit_vector Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001::MoveStdlib::ascii Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002::Sui::hex Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002::Sui::zklogin_verified_id Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002::Sui::prover Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002::Sui::coin Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002::Sui::dynamic_field Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002::Sui::transfer On-chain version of dependency Sui::zklogin_verified_id was not found. On-chain version of dependency Sui::zklogin_verified_issuer was not found. Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002::Sui::tx_context Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002::Sui::transfer_policy Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002::Sui::kiosk This issue often arises due to: Mismatched versions between the local development environment (e.g., Sui CLI) and the on-chain state. Differences in package configurations across networks (e.g., Mainnet vs. Testnet). Missing or outdated dependencies in the on-chain environment. Key Questions How can we automate the detection and resolution of these dependency mismatches during the publication process? What tools or scripts can be developed to ensure that local dependencies always align with their on-chain counterparts? Is there a way to streamline this process by integrating dependency checks into existing CI/CD pipelines or enhancing the Sui SDK? Your task is to propose a solution that addresses these challenges, ensuring smoother and more reliable deployments for Sui Move developers. Make sure to post your solution below.
- Sui
- SDKs and Developer Tools
42Best Answer
- 2565
- 1780
- 701
- 618
- 595
- 496
- 402
- 397
- 369
- 360
