Failed to submit transaction with datum hash

[tankangliang]

Currently trying to submit a transaction via cardano-submit-api and I get

[cardano-tx-submit:Info:528] [2021-10-20 17:15:47.36 UTC] txSubmitPost: failed to submit transaction: transaction read error RawCborDecodeError [DecoderErrorDeserialiseFailure "Byron Tx" (DeserialiseFailure 1 "Size mismatch when decoding TxAux.\nExpected 2, but found 3."),DecoderErrorDeserialiseFailure "Shelley Tx" (DeserialiseFailure 79 "Size mismatch when decoding \nRecord TxOut.\nExpected 3, but found 2."),DecoderErrorDeserialiseFailure "Shelley Tx" (DeserialiseFailure 79 "Size mismatch when decoding \nRecord TxOut.\nExpected 3, but found 2."),DecoderErrorDeserialiseFailure "Shelley Tx" (DeserialiseFailure 79 "Size mismatch when decoding \nRecord TxOut.\nExpected 3, but found 2."),DecoderErrorDeserialiseFailure "Shelley Tx" (DeserialiseFailure 1 "Size mismatch when decoding \nRecord RecD.\nExpected 3, but found 4.")]

Whereas after removing the data hash it immediately succeeds with

[cardano-tx-submit:Info:531] [2021-10-20 17:18:57.79 UTC] txSubmitPost: successfully submitted transaction 09743ae07548e109

May I know if transactions in the Alonzo Era are supported in 9.1.0?

If not, are there any resources I can refer to where I can try to implement it for the cardano-serialization-library?

[rooooooooob]

Hi @tankangliang this might be related to an open PR we have here #208 which due to a change in the alonzo format to add a field while keeping the shelley format for backwards compatability caused certain Alonzo-only features in the serialization lib to generate txs which are not accepted by the cardano node. All the features are implemented for Alonzo in 9.1.0 (a few versions before this I think) but this 1 missing field causes their Alonzo parser to mess up and thus only ones that don't use those features go through (using the backwards-compatible Shelley parser)

@vsubhuman Can we plase merge #208?

I am pretty sure once we get that PR merged this issue will be resolved, but we'll have to wait and see.

[rooooooooob]

@tankangliang are you still getting this issue? the linked PR was put into 9.1.2 release since that last comment and I believe that's likely the fix but it would be good to know in case it turned out to be something else or if we can close this issue