e13fea975d Add regression test for PSBT signing bug #14473 (Glenn Willen)
565500508a Refactor PSBTInput signing to enforce invariant (Glenn Willen)
0f5bda2bd9 Simplify arguments to SignPSBTInput (Glenn Willen)
53e6fffb8f Add bool PSBTInputSigned (Glenn Willen)
65166d4cf8 New PartiallySignedTransaction constructor from CTransction (Glenn Willen)
4f3f5cb4b1 Remove redundant txConst parameter to FillPSBT (Glenn Willen)
fe5d22bc67 More concise conversion of CDataStream to string (Glenn Willen)
Pull request description:
As discussed in the comments on #14473, I think that bug was caused primarily by failure to adhere to the invariant that a PSBTInput always has exactly one of the two utxo fields present -- an invariant that is already enforced by PSBTInput::IsSane, but which we were temporarily suspending during signing.
This refactor repairs the invariant, also fixing the bug. It also simplifies some other code, and removes redundant parameters from some related functions.
fixes#14473
Tree-SHA512: cbad3428175e30f9b7bac3f600668dd1a8f9acde16b915d27a940a2fa6d5149d4fbe236d5808fd590fb20a032274c99e8cac34bef17f79a53fdf69a5948c0fd0
Changes in this commit are required as a preparation to bitcoin#17261
Method GenerateNewHDChainEncrypted moved back from LegacyScriptManager to CWallet
This methods should not be moved before in #17260.
Also added 2 new methods in interface WalletStorage: NewKeyPoolCallback and KeepDestinationCallback
a57a1d42d52fe51e5b413a1fd3a5ef2b7a2120e3 test: add unit test for wallet watch-only methods involving PubKeys (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
The motivation for this addition was to unit test the function `wallet.cpp:ExtractPubKey()` (see recent change in commit 798a589aff64b83a0844688a661f4bd987c3340c) which is however static and only indirectly available via the public methods `AddWatchOnly()`, `LoadWatchOnly()` and `RemoveWatchOnly()`. Since the first of those methods also stores the addresses to the disk, the second, simpler one was chosen which only operates in memory.
ACKs for top commit:
Sjors:
ACK a57a1d4
instagibbs:
reACK a57a1d42d5
Sjors:
re-ACK a57a1d4
Tree-SHA512: 92a242204ab533022cd848662997372c41815b1265d07b3d96305697f801db29a5ba5668337faf4bea702bec1451972529afd6665927fb142aaf91700a338b26
a49503402b6bc21e3878e151c07529941d36aed0 Make and get the multisig redeemscript and destination in one function instead of two (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
`CreateMultisigRedeemscript()` is changed to `AddAndGetMultisigDestination()` so that the process of constructing the redeemScript and then getting the `CTxDestination` are done in the same function. This allows that function to see what the keys in the multisig are so that the correct address type is returned from `AddAndGetDestinationForScript()`.
This only effects the `createmultisig` and `addmultisigaddress` RPCs and does not change signing logic as #16022 does.
Alternative to #16022 and #16012Fixes#16011
ACKs for commit a49503:
Tree-SHA512: 5b0154a714deea3b2cc3a54beb420c95eeeacf4ca30c40ca80940d9d640f8b03611b0fc14c2f0710bfd8a79e8d27ad7d9ae380b4b83d52b40ab201624f2a63f0
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
These messages are pretty annoying on reindex and shouldn't really be
shown in logs unless you actually need to debug mn payments.
## What was done?
move messages under `MNPAYMENTS` debug category
## How Has This Been Tested?
reindex
## 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**
- [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
This allows us to have a bit more granular control over GetLLMQ results,
removes code duplication and also optimises things a tiny bit by
replacing "HasLLMQ + GetLLMQParams" calls with simply "GetLLMQParams".
Use `optional` in `GetLLMQ`, drop `HasLLMQ`.
run tests, reindex on testnet/mainnet
n/a
- [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
- Added new LLMQ type `llmq_25_67`
- The above LLMQ is added only for Testnet and it is activated with v19
fork.
- [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
---------
Co-authored-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Delayed activation to reexperience rc.6
## What was done?
## 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
- [ ] 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
This allows us to have a bit more granular control over GetLLMQ results,
removes code duplication and also optimises things a tiny bit by
replacing "HasLLMQ + GetLLMQParams" calls with simply "GetLLMQParams".
## What was done?
Use `optional` in `GetLLMQ`, drop `HasLLMQ`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, reindex on testnet/mainnet
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Help text for protx legacy versions were adjusted.
## What was done?
## 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
- [ ] 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>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
HPMN fields were missing when selecting a HPMN in Masternodes tab of Qt
client.
## What was done?
Return HPMN fields in JSON reply of `CDeterministicMNState`.
## 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
- [ ] 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?
When verifying signature of `CGovernanceVote`/`CGovernanceObject` we
need to use the active scheme.
## 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
- [ ] 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?
Removed protx_revoke_legacy since it required a BLS secret key and not a
BLS public key.
(BLS scheme is not applicable to secret keys)
## 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
- [ ] 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>
<!--
*** 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. -->
## What was done?
<!--- Describe your changes in detail -->
## 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
- [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: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
182dbdf0f4b6e6484b0d4588aaefacc75862a99c util: Detect posix_fallocate() instead of assuming (Vasil Dimov)
Pull request description:
Don't assume that `posix_fallocate()` is available on Linux and not
available on other operating systems. At least FreeBSD has it and we
are not using it.
Properly check whether `posix_fallocate()` is present and use it if it
is.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK 182dbdf0f4b6e6484b0d4588aaefacc75862a99c
Tree-SHA512: f9ed4bd661f33ff6b2b1150591e860b3c1f44e12b87c35e870d06a7013c4e841ed2bf17b41ad6b18fe471b0b23a4b5e42cf1400637180888e0bc56c254fe0766
fa501700e91b8667d4d2f116c3705e3ab9a1c8c3 wallet: Recommned absolute path for dumpwallet (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Avoids misunderstandings such as #9564
ACKs for top commit:
kristapsk:
utACK fa501700e91b8667d4d2f116c3705e3ab9a1c8c3
Tree-SHA512: f675ef607992857ffeb556a2945b5436a70b39c5d83f05a8be15a6fccc84cbe9d03e52f8239e28d159e41ed7c6f119b7a38e8ab327029f04609f63c559c12c49
c4027e735072c3de4b4ffb20eecd7187ff36bad7 refactor: test: use wait_for_getdata() in p2p_compactblocks.py (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
The method `wait_for_getdata()` was recently changed to be more precise by waiting for a specified list of hashes, instead of only matching _any_ `getdata` message (see Issue #18614 and PR #18690). This PR replaces the remaining occurences of manual inspection of `last_messages` with this call.
ACKs for top commit:
robot-visions:
ACK c4027e735072c3de4b4ffb20eecd7187ff36bad7
Tree-SHA512: e10b346742f235b6ee2ef1f32f7fd74406c1a277389f020fb9913a93e94cc9530e1e9414872b83c9d2ae652ebce2b09b2c8c8372260c1afb4e0e54fbf7a935b0
b91e4ae0d8ab2ae6b77585c97c52d825f56ed539 Do not expose and consider -logthreadnames when it does not work (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
There are conditions when the `HAVE_THREAD_LOCAL` macro is undefined what causes the `-logthreadnames` option does not work -- instead of thread names empty strings `[]` only are printed in the `debug.log` file.
This PR does not exposes the `-logthreadnames` option in such cases.
Refs:
- #16059
- #18652
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK b91e4ae0d8ab2ae6b77585c97c52d825f56ed539, looked at the diff, didn't test
Tree-SHA512: 3bd58e5ea603c69686589ddc94d6fa441cab4f712004378f2f1661e12638804ca03cfb6426e6393e55b6a095b325f3161d3c5371af05d7fc79d6d328227bf40c
0ae8f18dfe143051fec6ae10ea7df10142e3ff2f build: add -Wgnu to compile flags (fanquake)
3a0fd7726b8b916de6cce33bb67f48990575f923 Remove use of non-standard zero variadic macros (Ben Woosley)
49f6178c3e5e3ad54a419da9d8523207da17fc64 Drop unused LOG_TIME_MICROS helper (Ben Woosley)
5d4999951ee32e333b511245862628e80f83b703 prevector: Avoid unnamed struct, which is a GNU extension (DesWurstes)
Pull request description:
Since we [started using](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7165) the `ax_cxx_compile_stdcxx.m4` macro we've been passing `[noext]` to indicate that we don't want to use an extended mode, i.e GNU extensions. Speaking to Cory he clarified that the intention was to "require only vanilla c++11 and turn _off_ extension support so they would fail to compile".
However in the codebase we are currently making use of some GNU extensions. We should either remove there usage, or at least amend our CXX compiler checks. I'd prefer the former.
#### anonymous structs
```bash
./prevector.h:153:9: warning: anonymous structs are a GNU extension [-Wgnu-anonymous-struct]
struct {
```
This is fixed in b849212c1e.
#### variadic macros
```bash
./undo.h:57:50: warning: must specify at least one argument for '...' parameter of variadic macro [-Wgnu-zero-variadic-macro-arguments]
::Unserialize(s, VARINT(nVersionDummy));
```
This is taken care of in #18087.
The `LOG_TIME_*` macros introduced in #16805 make use of a [GNU extension](https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Variadic-Macros.html).
```bash
In file included from validation.cpp:22:
./logging/timer.h:99:99: warning: token pasting of ',' and __VA_ARGS__ is a GNU extension [-Wgnu-zero-variadic-macro-arguments]
BCLog::Timer<std::chrono::milliseconds> PASTE2(logging_timer, __COUNTER__)(__func__, end_msg, ## __VA_ARGS__)
^
./logging/timer.h:99:99: warning: token pasting of ',' and __VA_ARGS__ is a GNU extension [-Wgnu-zero-variadic-macro-arguments]
./logging/timer.h:99:99: warning: token pasting of ',' and __VA_ARGS__ is a GNU extension [-Wgnu-zero-variadic-macro-arguments]
./logging/timer.h:99:99: warning: token pasting of ',' and __VA_ARGS__ is a GNU extension [-Wgnu-zero-variadic-macro-arguments]
./logging/timer.h:99:99: warning: token pasting of ',' and __VA_ARGS__ is a GNU extension [-Wgnu-zero-variadic-macro-arguments]
./logging/timer.h:101:92: warning: token pasting of ',' and __VA_ARGS__ is a GNU extension [-Wgnu-zero-variadic-macro-arguments]
BCLog::Timer<std::chrono::seconds> PASTE2(logging_timer, __COUNTER__)(__func__, end_msg, ## __VA_ARGS__)
^
6 warnings generated.
```
This is fixed in 081a0ab64eb442bc85c4d4a4d3bc2c8e97ac2a6d and 612e8e138b97fc5ad2f38847300132a8fc423c3f.
#### prevention
To ensure that usage doesn't creep back in we can add [`-Wgnu`](https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html#wgnu) to our compile time flags, which will make Clang warn whenever it encounters GNU extensions.
This would close#14130.
Also related to #17230, where it's suggested we use a GNU extension, the `gnu::pure` attribute.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK 0ae8f18dfe143051fec6ae10ea7df10142e3ff2f -- diff looks correct
MarcoFalke:
ACK 0ae8f18dfe143051fec6ae10ea7df10142e3ff2f
vasild:
utACK 0ae8f18df
dongcarl:
ACK 0ae8f18dfe143051fec6ae10ea7df10142e3ff2f
Tree-SHA512: c517404681ef8edf04c785731d26105bac9f3c9c958605aa24cbe399c649e7c5ee0c4aa8e714fd2b2d335e2fbea4d571e09b0dec36678ef871f0a6683ba6bb7f
b56607a89ba112083f2b0a7b64ab18d66b26e2be Remove CCoinsViewCache::GetValueIn(...) (practicalswift)
Pull request description:
Remove `CCoinsViewCache::GetValueIn(...)`.
Fixes#18858.
It seems like `GetValueIn` was added in #748 ("Pay-to-script-hash (OP_EVAL replacement)", merged in 2012) and the last use in validation code was removed in #8498 ("Near-Bugfix: Optimization: Minimize the number of times it is checked that no money...", merged in 2017).
`CCoinsViewCache::GetValueIn(…)` performs money summation like this:
```c++
CAmount CCoinsViewCache::GetValueIn(const CTransaction& tx) const
{
if (tx.IsCoinBase())
return 0;
CAmount nResult = 0;
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < tx.vin.size(); i++)
nResult += AccessCoin(tx.vin[i].prevout).out.nValue;
return nResult;
}
```
Note that no check is done to make sure that the resulting `nResult` is such that it stays within the money bounds (`MoneyRange(nResult)`), or that the summation does not trigger a signed integer overflow.
Proof of concept output:
```
coins.cpp:243:17: runtime error: signed integer overflow: 9223200000000000000 + 2100000000000000 cannot be represented in type 'long'
GetValueIn = -9221444073709551616
```
Proof of concept code:
```c++
CMutableTransaction mutable_transaction;
mutable_transaction.vin.resize(4393);
Coin coin;
coin.out.nValue = MAX_MONEY;
assert(MoneyRange(coin.out.nValue));
CCoinsCacheEntry coins_cache_entry;
coins_cache_entry.coin = coin;
coins_cache_entry.flags = CCoinsCacheEntry::DIRTY;
CCoinsView backend_coins_view;
CCoinsViewCache coins_view_cache{&backend_coins_view};
CCoinsMap coins_map;
coins_map.emplace(COutPoint{}, std::move(coins_cache_entry));
coins_view_cache.BatchWrite(coins_map, {});
const CAmount total_value_in = coins_view_cache.GetValueIn(CTransaction{mutable_transaction});
std::cout << "GetValueIn = " << total_value_in << std::endl;
```
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK b56607a89ba112083f2b0a7b64ab18d66b26e2be
promag:
Code review ACK b56607a89ba112083f2b0a7b64ab18d66b26e2be.
jb55:
ACK b56607a89ba112083f2b0a7b64ab18d66b26e2be
hebasto:
ACK b56607a89ba112083f2b0a7b64ab18d66b26e2be, I have not tested the code, but I have reviewed it and it looks OK, I agree it can be merged.
Tree-SHA512: 2c8402b5753ec96703d12c57c3eda8eccf999ed3519134a87faaf0838cfe44b94ef384296af2a524c06c8756c0245418d181af9083548e360905fac9d79215e6
faff9e4bb431919a4bc7e4dc4a9ca188e2d18113 test: Remove unused, undocumented and misleading CScript.__add__ (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
See the corresponding pull #18612
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK faff9e4bb431919a4bc7e4dc4a9ca188e2d18113 provided it passes Travis
Tree-SHA512: 5d9c4d5b6453c70b24a6960d3b42834e9b31f6dbb99ac47a6abfd85f2739d5372563e7188c22aceabeee1c37eb218bf580848356f4a77268d65f178a9419b269
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Block 847000 hf should happen somewhere around March 4th. We need mining
nodes to be upgraded to follow that chain and mine correct blocks.
However we don't want v19 to be activated shortly after (~300 blocks),
we want to give it a little bit of time to let (new) platform quorums
form and make sure everything is ok. With this patch we should have ~2
days (instead of half of a day).
## What was done?
bumped v19 activation start time to March 6th
## How Has This Been Tested?
n/a
## Breaking Changes
yes :)
## 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
make linter happy, fix failures like
https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/jobs/3858504407
## What was done?
drop trailing whitespace
## How Has This Been Tested?
`COMMIT_RANGE=1a810ca07d..HEAD ./test/lint/lint-whitespace.sh `
fails on develop, passes on this branch
## 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**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
After the DIP24 fork, instant locks will still be served by
`llmq_test_instantsend`, since no `llmq_test_dip0024` will be formed
with less than 4 nodes.
## 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**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
- Added new LLMQ type `llmq_25_67`
- The above LLMQ is added only for Testnet and it is activated with v19
fork.
## 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
- [ ] 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>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
`MIN_MASTERNODE_PROTO_VERSION` was bumped to match latest
`PROTOCOL_VERSION`.
## 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
- [ ] 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
9e1cb1adf1800efe429e348650931f2669b0d2c0 [trivial/doc] Fix comment type (Amiti Uttarwar)
8f30260a67166a6ab7c0f33f7ec1990d3c31761e [doc] Update unbroadcast description in RPC results (Amiti Uttarwar)
750456d6f29c63d57af05bfbdd6035bb9c965de2 [trivial] Remove misleading 'const' (Amiti Uttarwar)
fa32e676e5833a5c5fc735ef00c0a80f5fab7a2c [test] Manage node connections better in mempool persist test (Amiti Uttarwar)
1f94bb0c744a103b633c1051e8fbc01e612097dc [doc] Provide rationale for randomization in scheduling. (Amiti Uttarwar)
9c8a55d9cb0ec73f10b196e79b637aa601c0a6b7 [mempool] Don't throw expected error message when upgrading (Amiti Uttarwar)
ba5498318233ab81decbc585e9619d8ffe2df1b0 [test] Test that wallet transactions aren't rebroadcast before 12 hours (Amiti Uttarwar)
00d44a534b4e5ae249b8011360c6b0f7dc731581 [test] P2P connection behavior should meet expectations (Amiti Uttarwar)
bd093ca15de762fdaf0937a0877d17b0c2bce16e [test] updates to unbroadcast test (Amiti Uttarwar)
dab298d9ab5a5a41685f437db9081fa7b395fa73 [docs] add release notes (Amiti Uttarwar)
Pull request description:
This PR is a follow up to #18038 which introduced the idea of an unbroadcast set & focuses mostly on documentation updates and test fixes. One small functionality update to not throw an expected error in `LoadMempool` when you upgrade software versions.
#18895 is another follow up to that addresses other functionality updates.
Background context:
The unbroadcast set is a mechanism for the mempool to track locally submitted transactions (via wallet or RPC). The node does a best-effort of delivering the transactions to the network via retries every 10-15 minutes until either a `GETDATA` is received or the transaction is removed from the mempool.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK 9e1cb1adf1 👁
gzhao408:
ACK [`9e1cb1a`](9e1cb1adf1)
Tree-SHA512: 0cd51c4ca368b9dce92d50d73ec6e9df278a259e609eef2858f24cb8595ad07acc3db781d9eb0c351715f18fca5a2b4526838981fdb34a522427e9dc868bdaa6
651f1d816f054cb9c637f8a99c9360bba381ef58 [test] wait for inital broadcast before comparing mempool entries (gzhao408)
9d3f7eb9860254eb787ebe2734fd6a26bcf365c1 [mempool] sanity check that all unbroadcast txns are in mempool (gzhao408)
a7ebe48b94c5a9195c8eabd193204c499cb4bfdb [rpc] add unbroadcast info to mempool entries and getmempoolinfo (gzhao408)
d16006960443c2efe37c896e46edae9dca86c57d [wallet] remove nLastResend logic (gzhao408)
Pull request description:
Followup to #18038 by amitiuttarwar which introduces the unbroadcast set: "a mechanism for the mempool to track locally submitted transactions" and decreases the frequency of rebroadcast from 10-15 minutes to 12-36 hours.
This PR addresses some of the outstanding TODOs building on top of it:
- remove `nLastResend` logic, which is used to ensure rebroadcast doesn't happen again if no new block has been mined (makes sense in 10-15 min period, but not necessary for 12-36 hour period). (#18038 [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18038#discussion_r416826914))
- expose unbroadcast info via RPCs, for more informative queries and testing (#18038 [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18038#discussion_r416837980))
- add sanity check to verify unbroadcast transactions still exist in mempool before rebroadcasting (#18038 [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18038#discussion_r416861609))
ACKs for top commit:
naumenkogs:
Code review ACK 651f1d816f054cb9c637f8a99c9360bba381ef58
amitiuttarwar:
ACK 651f1d816f054cb9c637f8a99c9360bba381ef58 🎉
MarcoFalke:
Review ACK 651f1d816f054cb9c637f8a99c9360bba381ef58
Tree-SHA512: d5327e95ef39d44152b48df5c610502ae11c168f43dbbfb2885340c93d1ba9426eb3a5794573f5fc843502109cb3ffb63efa3f2db4f8f112efcde8f76d9a8845
20b6e959449d0c07639599b99ba917d2cac62493 test: refactor functional tests to use restart_node (Christopher Coverdale)
Pull request description:
fixes#19345
This PR replaces consecutive calls to `stop_node()` and `start_node()` with `restart_node()` where appropriate in the functional tests.
The commit messages are repetitive but focused on each file changed with the intention of squashing if applicable.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK 20b6e959449d0c07639599b99ba917d2cac62493
Tree-SHA512: 1cfa1fb8c5f01a7b00fe44e80dbef072147f21e3891098817acd4275b0c5d91dc1c787594209e117edd418f2fa3a7b2dfcbafdf87efc07f740040938d641f3a9
80d4423f997e15780bfa3f91bf4b4bf656b8ea45 Test buffered valid message (Troy Giorshev)
Pull request description:
This PR is a tweak of #19302. This sends a valid message.
Additionally, this test includes logging in the same vein as #19272.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
tested ACK 80d4423f997e15780bfa3f91bf4b4bf656b8ea45 (added an assert(false) to observe deterministic coverage) 🌦
gzhao408:
ACK 80d4423f99👊
Tree-SHA512: 3b1aa5ec480a1661917354788923d64595e2886448c9697ec0606a81293e8b4a4642b2b3cc9afb2206ce6f74e5c6d687308c5ad19cb73c5b354d3071ad8496f8
