## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Given the hard fork that happened on testnet, there is now lots of the
transactions that were made on the fork that is no longer valid. Some
transactions could be relayed and mined again but some like coinjoin
mixing won't be relayed because of 0 fee and transactions spending
coinbases from the forked branch are no longer valid at all.
## What was done?
Introduce `wipewallettxes` RPC and `wipetxes` command for `dash-wallet`
tool to be able to get rid of some/all txes in the wallet.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, use rpc/command on testnet wallet
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
Mobile wallets would have to convert 4k+ pubkeys at the V19 fork point
and it's a pretty hard job for them that can easily take 10-15 seconds
if not more. Also after the HF, if a masternode list is requested from
before the HF, the operator keys come in basic scheme, but the
merkelroot was calculated with legacy. From mobile team work it wasn't
possible to convert all operator keys to legacy and then calculate the
correct merkleroot.
~This PR builds on top of ~#5392~ #5403 (changes that belong to this PR:
26f7e966500bdea4c604f1d16716b40b366fc707 and
4b42dc8fcee3354afd82ce7e3a72ebe1659f5f22) and aims to solve both of
these issues.~
cc @hashengineering @QuantumExplorer
Introduce `nVersion` on p2p level for every CSimplifiedMNListEntry. Set
`nVersion` to the same value we have it in CDeterministicMNState i.e.
pubkey serialization would not be via basic scheme only after the V19
fork, it would match the way it’s serialized on-chain/in
CDeterministicMNState for that specific MN.
run tests
NOTE: `testnet` is going to re-fork at v19 forkpoint because
`merkleRootMNList` is not going to match
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
same as #5392, alternative solution
~based on #5402 atm, will rebase later~
pls see individual commits
reorg mainnet around forkpoint with a patched client (to allow low
difficulty), run tests
Another evodb migration is required. Going back to an older version or
migrating after the fork requires reindexing.
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
fix a couple of issues in helpers, extend feature_dip3_v19.py to check
more after v19 fork
## What was done?
pls see individual PRs
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently, Chainlocks are either enabled or disabled. This PR adds a
third state: enabled but we will not sign new ones.
Should probably backport this to v19.x
## What was done?
Spork state != 0 but active will now result in chain locks being
enforced but not created.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Install of dash_hash will change once
https://github.com/dashpay/dash_hash/pull/17/ is merged
## What was done?
- Changed install instructions to match new install in dash_hash README
- Updated Dockerfile to install correctly
## How Has This Been Tested?
N/A
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
<!--- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
During reviewing TODO were found some TODOes that can be done now.
- fix: follow-up dash#3467 - replaced commented code to disabled code
- follow-up bitcoin#16394 - uncommented code related to `watchonly`
feature
- removed out-dated TODO in `rpc/masternode.cpp` (already done)
- fix: renamed name of clean up test_unittests: removed TODO and updated
name of variable TRAVIS
- rewritten todo inside `.travis.yml`
- fix: adds a missing description for result of rpc `mnsync`
Last commit (`mnsync`) is an only candidate for backport to v19, other
changes are non significant.
Run functional/unit tests
No breaking changes
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
This was reported/requested by @HashEngineering:
> Older versions of our App won't sync due to if (obj.nVersion ==
BASIC_BLS_VERSION) . Older versions don't know what version a SML Entry
is. As such, they will never read the type field. On the android client
this causes an offset problem when reading the mnlistdiff and it will
throw an exception that bans the peer that supplied it. Soon enough, no
peers will be left to connect to because they will all give the android
client bad data.
## What was done?
With this PR, SML will serialise the new v19 fields (`nType`,
`platformHTTPPort`, `platformNodeID`) if the client's version is at
least equal to `70227`.
Note: Serialisation for hashing skips the above rule.
Also, functional test mininode protocol version is set to `70227`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
1. we need to move time forward to let invs being relayed
2. nNextInvSend in SendMessages can be bumped up to 30+ seconds into the
future in rare cases
make sure timeouts in tests are high enough to relay tx inv/wait for
corresponding islock
## What was done?
tl;dr: bump mocktime while waiting, wait longer
extracted fixes from https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5288 but I
expect this to fix other sporadic test failures too
## How Has This Been Tested?
tests are ok locally and in https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5288
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
should hopefully fix some sporadic ci test failures (like
https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/jobs/4052206622#L1962)
## What was done?
tweaked dynamically_add/update functions to make checks more consistent
and avoid some edge cases, pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_llmq_hpmn.py` and `feature_dip3_v19.py` still work locally,
let's see if ci is now (constantly) happy about these too...
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
fix `p2p_quorum_data.py` test broken by #5276
## What was done?
adjust data request expiration timeout in tests
## How Has This Been Tested?
`./test/functional/test_runner.py p2p_quorum_data.py`
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
Provide a general summary of your changes in the Title above
Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it
improves
Dash Core user experience or Dash Core developer experience
significantly:
* Any test improvements or new tests that improve coverage are always
welcome.
* All other changes should have accompanying unit tests (see
`src/test/`) or
functional tests (see `test/`). Contributors should note which tests
cover
modified code. If no tests exist for a region of modified code, new
tests
should accompany the change.
* Bug fixes are most welcome when they come with steps to reproduce or
an
explanation of the potential issue as well as reasoning for the way the
bug
was fixed.
* Features are welcome, but might be rejected due to design or scope
issues.
If a feature is based on a lot of dependencies, contributors should
first
consider building the system outside of Dash Core, if possible.
-->
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
<!--- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? -->
<!--- If it fixes an open issue, please link to the issue here. -->
Before this fix, uniqueness of HPMN `platformNodeID` was checked only
while processing a block containing a `ProRegTx` or a `ProUpServTx`.
This is not enough as a `ProRegTx` or `ProUpServTx` containing duplicate
HPMN `platformNodeID` must be rejected at tx broadcast level.
## What was done?
<!--- Describe your changes in detail -->
Checking uniqueness when calling respective RPC and when receiving such
txs.
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!--- Please describe in detail how you tested your changes. -->
<!--- Include details of your testing environment, and the tests you ran
to -->
<!--- see how your change affects other areas of the code, etc. -->
## Breaking Changes
<!--- Please describe any breaking changes your code introduces -->
## Checklist:
<!--- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`CDeterministicMNList` stores internally a map containing the hashes of
all properties that needed to be unique.
`pubKeyOperator` don't differ between the two schemes (legacy and
basic(v19)) but their serialisation do: hence their hash.
Because this internal map stores only hashes, then we need to
re-calculate hashes and repopulate.
So when we tried to revoke a masternode after the fork, the `ProUpRevTx`
couldn't be mined because the hash of the `pubKeyOperator` differed.
## What was done?
When retrieving a `CDeterministicMNList` for a given block, if v19 is
active for that block, then we repopulate the internal map.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Without this fix, `feature_dip3_v19.py` is failing with
`failed-calc-cb-mnmerkleroot` (Error encountered on Testnet)
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Avoid lots of static_cast's from enums to underlying types. Communicate
intention better
## What was done?
implement c++23 inspired ToUnderlying, then see std::to_underlying and
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/underlying_type; Then, we use
this instead of static_casts for enums -> underlying type
## How Has This Been Tested?
make check
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: Konstantin Akimov <knstqq@gmail.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`develop` can't sync on mainnet and testnet atm because platform quorums
are already active there but we skip non-hpms nodes when calculating
quorums.
## What was done?
Fixed the code to respect `IsV19Active`. Also dropped
`IsLLMQTypeHPMNOnly` cause it's not used anywhere else and it just makes
things more confusing imo.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Can successfully sync on mainnet/testnet
## Breaking Changes
n/a, fixes breaking changes introduced earlier :)
## Checklist:
<!--- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
1. Increased protocol version of mininode to match v19 changes in
`MNLISTDIFF` P2P message
2. Added verification of MNs and HPMNs (dip4) in `feature_llmq_hpmn.py`
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
As discussed with Platform team, threshold for `llmq_test_platform`
needed to be 67%. Therefore, the size went from 4 members to 3 (while
keeping threshold to 2)
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
- `masternode status` now returns the type as well
- `masternode count` now returns in addition total and total enabled MNs
per type.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Added functional tests
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
e57980b4738c10344baf136de3e050a3cb958ca5 [mempool] Remove NotifyEntryAdded and NotifyEntryRemoved callbacks (John Newbery)
2dd561f36124972d2364f941de9c3417c65f05b6 [validation] Remove pool member from ConnectTrace (John Newbery)
969b65f3f527631ede1a31c7855151e5c5d91f8f [validation] Remove NotifyEntryRemoved callback from ConnectTrace (John Newbery)
5613f9842b4000fed088b8cf7b99674c328d15e1 [validation] Remove conflictedTxs from PerBlockConnectTrace (John Newbery)
cdb893443cc16edf974f099b8485e04b3db1b1d7 [validation interface] Remove vtxConflicted from BlockConnected (John Newbery)
1168394d759b13af68acec6d5bfa04aaa24561f8 [wallet] Notify conflicted transactions in TransactionRemovedFromMempool (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
These boost signals were added in #9371, before we had a `TransactionRemovedFromMempool` method in the validation interface. The `NotifyEntryAdded` callback was used by validation to build a vector of conflicted transactions when connecting a block, which the wallet was notified of in the `BlockConnected` CValidationInterface callback.
Now that we have a `TransactionRemovedFromMempool` callback, we can fire that signal directly from the mempool for conflicted transactions.
Note that #9371 was implemented to ensure `-walletnotify` events were fired for these conflicted transaction. We inadvertently stopped sending these notifications in #16624 (Sep 2019 commit 7e89994). We should probably fix that, but in a different PR.
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
Re-ACK e57980b
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK e57980b4738c10344baf136de3e050a3cb958ca5, no code changes since previous review, but helpful new code comments have been added and the PR description is now more clear about where the old code came from
Tree-SHA512: 3bdbaf1ef2731e788462d4756e69c42a1efdcf168691ce1bbfdaa4b7b55ac3c5b1fd4ab7b90bcdec653703600501b4224d252cfc086aef28f9ce0da3b0563a69
e20c72f9f076681def325b5b5fa53bccda2b0eab Fire TransactionRemovedFromMempool from mempool (251)
Pull request description:
This pull request fires TransactionRemovedFromMempool callbacks from the mempool and cleans up a bunch of code.
It also resolves the `txmempool -> validation -> validationinterface -> txmempool` circular dependency.
Ideally, `validationinterface` is a dumb component that doesn't have any knowledge of the sub-systems it sends its notifications to. The commit that aims to resolve this circular dependency by moving `txmempool` specific code out of `validationinterface` to `txmempool` where it belongs.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
ACK e20c72f9f076681def325b5b5fa53bccda2b0eab
Tree-SHA512: 354c3ff1113b21a0b511d80d604edfe3846dddae3355e43d1387f68906e54bf5dc01e7c029edc0b8e635b500b2ab97ee50362e2486eb4319f7347ee9a9e6cef3
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Implementation of 4k collateral HPMN.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+pastapastapasta@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <1935069+Udjinm6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Konstantin Akimov <545784+knst@users.noreply.github.com>
fa499b5f027f77c0bf13699852c8c06f78e27bef rpc: bugfix: Properly use iswitness in converttopsbt (MarcoFalke)
fa5c5cd141f0265a5693234690ac757b811157d8 rpc: Switch touched RPCs to IsValidNumArgs (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
When a serialized transaction has inputs, there is no risk in only trying to deserialize it with witness allowed. (This is how all transactions from p2p are deserialized.) In fact, it would avoid a common issue where a transaction with inputs can be deserialized in two ways:
* Fixes#12989
* Fixes#15872
* Fixes#15701
* Fixes#13738
* ...
When a serialized transaction has no inputs, there is no risk in only trying to deserialze it with witness disallowed. (A transaction without inputs can't have corresponding witness data)
ACKs for commit fa499b:
meshcollider:
utACK fa499b5f02
ryanofsky:
utACK fa499b5f027f77c0bf13699852c8c06f78e27bef. Changes since last review: consolidating commits and making iswitness documentation the same across methods.
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK fa499b5f027f77c0bf13699852c8c06f78e27bef
Tree-SHA512: a64423a3131f3f0222a40da557c8b590c9ff01b45bcd40796f77a1a64ae74c6680a6be9d01ece95c492dfbcc7e2810409d2c2b336c2894af00bb213972fc85c6
7813eb1db1 [qa] Overhaul p2p_compactblocks.py (Suhas Daftuar)
+ extra fixes for pull request #1966 (compact blocks)
Pull request description:
Remove tests of:
- compactblock behavior in a simulated pre-segwit version of bitcoind
This should have been removed a long time ago, as it is not generally
necessary for us to test the behavior of old nodes (except perhaps if we
want to test that upgrading from an old node to a new one behaves properly)
- compactblock behavior during segwit upgrade (ie verifying that network
behavior before and after activation was as expected)
This is unnecessary to test now that segwit activation has already happened.
ACKs for commit 7813eb:
jnewbery:
utACK 7813eb1db132c023902ad945995cc32a325893ca
Tree-SHA512: cadf035e6f822fa8cff974ed0c2e88a1d4d7da559b341e574e785fd3d309cc2c98c63bc05479265dc00550ae7b77fc3cbe815caae7f68bcff13a04367dca9b52
b651ef7e1c submitheader: more directly test missing prev block header (Gregory Sanders)
1e7f741745 remove some magic mining constants in functional tests (Gregory Sanders)
Pull request description:
The fewer magic numbers the better.
Also more directly tested a `submitheader` case of bad previous blockhash.
Tree-SHA512: 52b01a6aa199fa909eea4e9e84409a901933e545724e33149cc4132c82168199fd678809b6d94d95c9ff6ad02238a9552363620d13b8beaa5d4b67ade9ef425c
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
it was picking the wrong DMN as a payee...
## What was done?
see code and notes
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
<!--- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
deaa6dd144f5650b385658a0c4f9a014aff8dde2 psbt: check output index is within bounds before accessing (Andrew Chow)
f1ef7f0aa46338f4cd8de79696027a1bf868f359 Don't calculate tx fees for PSBTs with invalid money values (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
Fixes#17149
Two classes of issues were found by the psbt fuzzer: values out of range and causing overflows, and prevout indexes being out of range. This PR fixes both.
When accessing a specific output using the index given in the tx, check that it is actually a possible output before trying to access the output.
When summing and checking amounts for `decodepsbt` and `analyzepsbt`, make sure that the values are actually valid money values.. Otherwise, stop summing and don't show the fee. For `analyzepsbt`, return that the next role is the Creator since the Creator needs to remake the transaction to be valid.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK deaa6dd144f5650b385658a0c4f9a014aff8dde2 -- only change since last ACK was the addition of tests
gwillen:
tested ACK deaa6dd, would also like to see this merged!
Tree-SHA512: 06c36720bbb5a7ab1c29f7d15878bf9f0d3e5760c06bff479d412e1bf07bb3e0e9ab6cca820a4bfedaab71bfd7af813807e87cbcdf0af25cc3f66a53a06dbcfd
773d4572a4864ab7b6380858d07d9579ff6dd9a2 Mark PSBTs spending unspendable outputs as invalid in analysis (Andrew Chow)
638e40cb6080800c7b0a7f4028f63326acbe4700 Have a PSBTAnalysis state that indicates invalid PSBT (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
When analyzing an unspendable PSBT, report that it is unspendable and exit analysis early.
ACKs for top commit:
Sjors:
ACK 773d457
instagibbs:
After some thought ACK 773d4572a4
Tree-SHA512: 99b0cb2fa1ea37593fc65a20effe881639d69ddeeecf5197bc87bc7f2220cbeb40f1d429d517e4d27f2e9fb563a00cd845d2b4b1ce05246a75a6cb56fb9b0ba5
91cc18f602fe2ff7fe47335a8e1e7734895a19d9 [docs] Add release notes for PR 15427 (John Newbery)
3b11420b3c91f731b03805a39e48ee32e54484a2 [RPC] add new utxoupdatepsbt arguments to the CRPCCommand and CPRCConvertParam tables (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
The new `descriptors` argument was not added to the CRPCCommand and CPRCCvertParam tables, meaning that it couldn't be used with bitcoin-cli or named arguments.
Before this PR:
```
> bitcoin-cli utxoupdatepsbt 'cHNidP8BAFMCAAAAAYCdwVRx2X3o4KHx5tAMsN1ddp51MbfWsietjfMbl5HtAAAAAAD/////AQDh9QUAAAAAF6kUW+rtEOi4nk9rpw2F5XZl1dd8ehGHAAAAAAAAAA==' "[{\"desc\":\"sh(wpkh([bd50871a/0h/0h/0h]03895c66337b38699bfafff1084ad35bc347fac4f4e5e5fe5eb7dd81155280db53))\"}]"
error code: -3
error message:
Expected type array, got string
> bitcoin-cli --named utxoupdatepsbt psbt='cHNidP8BAFMCAAAAAYCdwVRx2X3o4KHx5tAMsN1ddp51MbfWsietjfMbl5HtAAAAAAD/////AQDh9QUAAAAAF6kUW+rtEOi4nk9rpw2F5XZl1dd8ehGHAAAAAAAAAA==' descriptors="[{\"desc\":\"sh(wpkh([bd50871a/0h/0h/0h]03895c66337b38699bfafff1084ad35bc347fac4f4e5e5fe5eb7dd81155280db53))\"}]"
error code: -8
error message:
Unknown named parameter descriptors
```
After this PR:
```
bitcoin-cli utxoupdatepsbt 'cHNidP8BAFMCAAAAAYCdwVRx2X3o4KHx5tAMsN1ddp51MbfWsietjfMbl5HtAAAAAAD/////AQDh9QUAAAAAF6kUW+rtEOi4nk9rpw2F5XZl1dd8ehGHAAAAAAAAAA==' "[{\"desc\":\"sh(wpkh([bd50871a/0h/0h/0h]03895c66337b38699bfafff1084ad35bc347fac4f4e5e5fe5eb7dd81155280db53))\"}]"
cHNidP8BAFMCAAAAAYCdwVRx2X3o4KHx5tAMsN1ddp51MbfWsietjfMbl5HtAAAAAAD/////AQDh9QUAAAAAF6kUW+rtEOi4nk9rpw2F5XZl1dd8ehGHAAAAAAAAAA==
bitcoin-cli --named utxoupdatepsbt psbt='cHNidP8BAFMCAAAAAYCdwVRx2X3o4KHx5tAMsN1ddp51MbfWsietjfMbl5HtAAAAAAD/////AQDh9QUAAAAAF6kUW+rtEOi4nk9rpw2F5XZl1dd8ehGHAAAAAAAAAA==' descriptors="[{\"desc\":\"sh(wpkh([bd50871a/0h/0h/0h]03895c66337b38699bfafff1084ad35bc347fac4f4e5e5fe5eb7dd81155280db53))\"}]"
cHNidP8BAFMCAAAAAYCdwVRx2X3o4KHx5tAMsN1ddp51MbfWsietjfMbl5HtAAAAAAD/////AQDh9QUAAAAAF6kUW+rtEOi4nk9rpw2F5XZl1dd8ehGHAAAAAAAAAA==
```
ACKs for top commit:
promag:
ACK 91cc18f.
fanquake:
re-ACK 91cc18f602fe2ff7fe47335a8e1e7734895a19d9
Tree-SHA512: 279b2339a5cac17e363002e4ab743e251d6757c904c89f1970575bdce18d4f63d5e13507e171bf2bdc1bf6dd457db345a4b11b15d4ff71b96c2fedc4ffe52b23
fa511042b0bbec02016761bcd0d30f57e0386550 doc: [test] Remove outdated comment in fuzz runner (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
All folders are soft-created with `os.makedirs`
ACKs for top commit:
RiccardoMasutti:
ACK fa51104
Tree-SHA512: 4051688946a205a981bbb005300fe3263495ead26591042b38ae44f4297c7689a613b560052fb5405a62054734d2599cfb0554a37c7b7369fb3a3636743d04a8
fa957f8dc9990e4479e4d2af46a63ceae89cd39b test: Add race:SendZmqMessage tsan suppression (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Add suppression for `race:SendZmqMessage`, which isn't covered by the existing `zmq::*` suppression
Fixes#20618
ACKs for top commit:
hebasto:
re-ACK fa957f8dc9990e4479e4d2af46a63ceae89cd39b, as my previous comment is not directly related to this pull changes.
Tree-SHA512: 8642a8b79bbfa4bee89042b66e528f27fd78c5e84a33023df440662e9114e31445fd7b04940f44b11fa4ab7438d346385a21816289c818cce9958a9b16730452
58cfbc38e040925b51cb8d35d23b50e9cf06fb2a Ignoring (but warn) on duplicate -wallet parameters (Jonas Schnelli)
Pull request description:
I expect that there are many users with load on startup wallet definitions in `bitcoin.conf` or via startup CLI argument.
With the new `settings.json` r/w configuration file, users unloading and loading a wallet through the GUI or via the RPC calls might end up with a duplicate `-wallet` entry (one that still remains in bitcoin.conf or CLI) plus the new duplication in `settings.json` due to the unload/load.
Steps to reproduce
* create wallet (if via RPC set `load_on_startup` or unloadwallet/loadwallet then set `load_on_startup`).
* stop bitcoin
* start bitcoind again with same `--wallet=mywallet`
I guess it is acceptable to skip duplicates.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
Tested ACK 58cfbc38e040925b51cb8d35d23b50e9cf06fb2a
meshcollider:
Code review ACK 58cfbc38e040925b51cb8d35d23b50e9cf06fb2a
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 58cfbc38e040925b51cb8d35d23b50e9cf06fb2a. Changes since previous review: rebased, tweaked warning message, squashed/fixed test
Tree-SHA512: f94e5a999bdd7dc291f0bc142911b0a8033929350d6f6a35b58c4a06a3c8f83147be0f0c402d4e946dedbbcc85b7e023b672c731b6d7a8984d4780017c961cfb
fa5f46600fb98f1b35346bedc1a66c9019d01114 test: Fix rpc_net intermittent issue (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Without the sync, the nodes might generate blocks at the same height and thus never be able to sync
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK fa5f46600fb98f1b35346bedc1a66c9019d01114: patch looks correct
Tree-SHA512: 21255795c2121c71fc620beb766855e57c7af94a668331d1b625665e22eb4b485a2b5c3ad2bb9a7042744f3c3e49c71251bcec41ba25bca03fd54aae32968a3a
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
autoresending was really slow
## What was done?
reduced the time range to from 1-3 hours from now
## How Has This Been Tested?
hasn't
## Breaking Changes
Shouldn't be
## Checklist:
<!--- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
fa80b4788bbe3ef00c5d767c0d89ba9809d8707c test: Remove global wait_until from p2p_getdata (MarcoFalke)
999922baed3a80b581ce46daa01c4cbca4fcbfd8 test: Default mininode.wait_until timeout to 60s (MarcoFalke)
fab47375fe0bdec1e557e087fdb0707c4dfa7cc2 test: pep-8 p2p_getdata.py (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Using the global wait_until makes it impossible to adjust the timeout based on the hardware the test is running on.
Fix that by using the mininode member function.
So for example, `./test/functional/p2p_getdata.py --timeout-factor=0.04` gives a timeout of 2.4 seconds.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK fa80b4788bbe3ef00c5d767c0d89ba9809d8707c
Tree-SHA512: ebb1b7860a64451de2b8ee9a0966faddb13b84af711f6744e8260d7c9bc0b382e8fb259897df5212190821e850ed30d4d5c2d7af45a97f207fd4511b06b6674a
9847e205bf7edcac4c30ce4b6d62f482aa7bc1b7 [docs] Improve commenting in ProcessGetData() (John Newbery)
2f032556e08a04807c71eb02104ca9589eaadf1b [test] test that an invalid GETDATA doesn't prevent processing of future messages (Amiti Uttarwar)
e257cf71c851e25e1a533bf1d4296f6b55c81332 [net processing] ignore unknown INV types in GETDATA messages (Amiti Uttarwar)
047ceac142246b5d51056a51dbf4645b31802be4 [net processing] ignore tx GETDATA from blocks-only peers (Amiti Uttarwar)
Pull request description:
Currently we'll stall peers that send us an unknown INV type in a GETDATA message. Be a bit more friendly and just drop the invalid request.
Ditto for blocks-relay-only peers that send us a GETDATA for a transaction.
There's a test for the first part. The second is difficult to test in the functional test framework since we aren't able to make blocks-relay-only connections.
ACKs for top commit:
sipa:
utACK 9847e205bf7edcac4c30ce4b6d62f482aa7bc1b7
brakmic:
ACK 9847e205bf
luke-jr:
utACK 9847e205bf7edcac4c30ce4b6d62f482aa7bc1b7
naumenkogs:
utACK 9847e20
ajtowns:
utACK 9847e205bf7edcac4c30ce4b6d62f482aa7bc1b7
Tree-SHA512: 6007f2fd839ffe737727f6fb8e8f083b2d9e05a510748f1d40b8f9be8fdf7b5419a36d8f1039923eec1ba2983e8f6f0436ec5fc196d9f6dcb0657f2ff8ff8e4c
