TEC Codes
These codes indicate that the transaction failed, but it was applied to a ledger to apply the transaction cost. They have numerical values in the range 100 to 199. It is recommended to use the text code, not the numeric value.
Transactions with tec
codes destroy the XAH paid as a transaction cost and consume a sequence number. For the most part, the transactions take no other action, but there are some exceptions. For example, a transaction that results in tecOVERSIZE
still cleans up some unfunded offers. Always look at the transaction metadata to see precisely what a transaction did.
Caution: A transaction that provisionally failed with a tec
code may still succeed or fail with a different code after being reapplied. The result is final when it appears in a validated ledger version. For more information, see Finality of Results and Reliable Transaction Submission.
Code | Value | Explanation |
---|---|---|
| 157 | The transaction tried to accept an offer that was placed by the same account to buy or sell a non-fungible token. (Added by the [NonFungibleTokensV1_1 amendment][].) |
| 100 | Unspecified failure, with transaction cost destroyed. |
| 146 | This [EscrowCreate][] or [EscrowFinish][] transaction contained a malformed or mismatched crypto-condition. |
| 121 | The transaction tried to add an object (such as a trust line, Check, Escrow, or Payment Channel) to an account's owner directory, but that account cannot own any more objects in the ledger. |
| 149 | The transaction tried to create an object (such as a [DepositPreauth][] authorization) that already exists. |
| 143 | The [Payment transaction][] omitted a destination tag, but the destination account has the |
| 148 | The transaction tried to create an object (such as an Offer or a Check) whose provided Expiration time has already passed. |
| 105 | An unspecified error occurred when processing the transaction. |
| 137 | The [OfferCreate transaction][] failed because one or both of the assets involved are subject to a global freeze. |
| 151 | The [AccountDelete transaction][] failed because the account to be deleted owns objects that cannot be deleted. See Deletion of Accounts for details. |
| 122 | The transaction failed because the sending account does not have enough XAH to create a new trust line. (See: Reserves) This error occurs when the counterparty already has a trust line in a non-default state to the sending account for the same currency. (See |
| 123 | The transaction failed because the sending account does not have enough XAH to create a new Offer. (See: Reserves) |
| 136 | The transaction failed because the sending account does not have enough XAH to pay the transaction cost that it specified. (In this case, the transaction processing destroys all of the sender's XAH even though that amount is lower than the specified transaction cost.) This result only occurs if the account's balance decreases after this transaction has been distributed to enough of the network to be included in a consensus set. Otherwise, the transaction fails with |
| 158 | One of the accounts involved does not hold enough of a necessary asset. (Added by the [NonFungibleTokensV1_1 amendment][].) |
| 161 | The amount specified is not enough to pay all fees involved in the transaction. For example, when trading a non-fungible token, the buy amount may not be enough to pay both the broker fee and the sell amount. (Added by the [NonFungibleTokensV1_1 amendment][].) |
| 141 | The transaction would increase the reserve requirement higher than the sending account's balance. [SignerListSet][], [PaymentChannelCreate][], [PaymentChannelFund][], and [EscrowCreate][] can return this error code. See Signer Lists and Reserves for more information. |
| 144 | |
| 147 | |
| 150 | The [OfferCreate transaction][] specified the |
| 153 | A sequence number field is already at its maximum. This includes the |
| 142 | This transaction tried to cause changes that require the master key, such as disabling the master key or giving up the ability to freeze balances. [New in: rippled 0.28.0][] |
| 155 | The [NFTokenAcceptOffer transaction][] attempted to match incompatible offers to buy and sell a non-fungible token. (Added by the [NonFungibleTokensV1_1 amendment][].) |
| 156 | One or more of the offers specified in the transaction was not the right type of offer. (For example, a buy offer was specified in the |
| 130 | The transaction tried to remove the only available method of authorizing transactions. This could be a [SetRegularKey transaction][] to remove the regular key, a [SignerListSet transaction][] to delete a SignerList, or an [AccountSet transaction][] to disable the master key. (Prior to |
| 134 | The transaction failed because it needs to add a balance on a trust line to an account with the |
| 124 | The account on the receiving end of the transaction does not exist. This includes Payment and TrustSet transaction types. (It could be created if it received enough XAH.) |
| 125 | The account on the receiving end of the transaction does not exist, and the transaction is not sending enough XAH to create it. |
| 140 | The transaction tried to modify a ledger object, such as a Check, Payment Channel, or Deposit Preauthorization, but the specified object does not exist. It may have already been deleted by a previous transaction or the transaction may have an incorrect value in an ID field such as |
| 133 | The account specified in the |
| 135 | The |
| 126 | The transaction failed because the sending account does not have enough XAH to create a new trust line. (See: Reserves) This error occurs when the counterparty does not have a trust line to this account for the same currency. (See |
| 127 | The transaction failed because it tried to set a trust line to its default state, but the trust line did not exist. |
| 139 | The sender does not have permission to do this operation. For example, the [EscrowFinish transaction][] tried to release a held payment before its |
| 131 | The [AccountSet transaction][] tried to disable the master key, but the account does not have another way to authorize transactions. If multi-signing is enabled, this code is deprecated and |
| 154 | The transaction tried to mint or acquire a non-fungible token but the account receiving the |
| 138 | The transaction referenced an Escrow or PayChannel ledger object that doesn't exist, either because it never existed or it has already been deleted. (For example, another [EscrowFinish transaction][] has already executed the held payment.) Alternatively, the destination account has |
| 160 | One of the objects specified by this transaction did not exist in the ledger. (Added by the [NonFungibleTokensV1_1 amendment][].) |
| 145 | This transaction could not be processed, because the server created an excessively large amount of metadata when it tried to apply the transaction. [New in: rippled 0.29.0-hf1][] |
| 132 | The transaction cannot succeed because the sender already owns objects in the ledger. For example, an account cannot enable the |
| 128 | The transaction failed because the provided paths did not have enough liquidity to send anything at all. This could mean that the source and destination accounts are not linked by trust lines. |
| 101 | The transaction failed because the provided paths did not have enough liquidity to send the full amount. |
| 152 | The [AccountDelete transaction][] failed because the account to be deleted had a |
| 129 | The transaction failed because the account does not hold enough XAH to pay the amount in the transaction and satisfy the additional reserve necessary to execute this transaction. |
| 102 | DEPRECATED. |
| 104 | The transaction failed because the sending account is trying to send more XAH than it holds, not counting the reserve. |
| 103 | The [OfferCreate transaction][] failed because the account creating the offer does not have any of the |
| 169 | The SetHook transaction][] failed because of an incorrect Flag and Field combination. |
| 170 | The transaction failed because the result would end with significant precision loss. |
Last updated