Transaction can't be replaced, mining has already started

[teknoxic]

Hi,

ganache v7.0.2 (@ganache/cli: 0.1.3, @ganache/core: 0.1.3)
node v14.10.0
Ubuntu 20 Sever

I'm building an ERC20 token DEX, i'm currently using ganache, it uses an order book system. Everything works well, but when i make multiple transactions within a quick succession i get the following error:

Error: Returned error: transaction can't be replaced, mining has already started. (please open an issue with reproduction steps: https://github.com/trufflesuite/ganache/issues/new)
    at Object.ErrorResponse (/opt/backend2/node_modules/web3-core-helpers/lib/errors.js:28:19)
    at /opt/backend2/node_modules/web3-core-requestmanager/lib/index.js:302:36
    at XMLHttpRequest.request.onreadystatechange (/opt/backend2/node_modules/web3-providers-http/lib/index.js:98:13)
    at XMLHttpRequestEventTarget.dispatchEvent (/opt/backend2/node_modules/xhr2-cookies/dist/xml-http-request-event-target.js:34:22)
    at XMLHttpRequest._setReadyState (/opt/backend2/node_modules/xhr2-cookies/dist/xml-http-request.js:208:14)
    at XMLHttpRequest._onHttpResponseEnd (/opt/backend2/node_modules/xhr2-cookies/dist/xml-http-request.js:318:14)
    at IncomingMessage.<anonymous> (/opt/backend2/node_modules/xhr2-cookies/dist/xml-http-request.js:289:61)
    at IncomingMessage.emit (node:events:402:35)
    at endReadableNT (node:internal/streams/readable:1343:12)
    at processTicksAndRejections (node:internal/process/task_queues:83:21)

The error doesn't appear on ganache-cli itself, it appears on my backend script that sends transactions to ganache, I would guess that ganache is returning this error because it thinks the transactions are the same.

any idea what could be causing this problem and how to fix?

[davidmurdoch]

Probably a duplicate of #2509. We're working on a fix. In the meantime you may be able to work around this race condition if you can keep track of account nonces locally and set the nonce property on the transactions before sending to ganache.

[haltman-at]

Closing for now as probable duplicate of #2509, but @teknoxic if you have more info that gives us reason to think this is different we can perhaps reopen this.