d0dab897afaac0a18aa47d3ce673a4a43a69178a Refactor: Require scriptPubKey to get wallet SigningProvider (Andrew Chow)
4b0c718f8f48c678cbe4575e9a9cf9e62a30f0da Accumulate result UniValue in SignTransaction (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
Easier to review ignoring whitespace:
git log -p -n1 -w
This commit does not change behavior. It passes new CScript arguments to
signing functions, but the arguments aren't currently used.
Split from #17261
ACKs for top commit:
instagibbs:
utACK d0dab897af
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK d0dab897afaac0a18aa47d3ce673a4a43a69178a. Thanks for the SignTransaction update. No other changes since last review
Sjors:
Code review ACK d0dab897afaac0a18aa47d3ce673a4a43a69178a
promag:
Code review ACK d0dab897afaac0a18aa47d3ce673a4a43a69178a.
meshcollider:
Code review ACK d0dab897afaac0a18aa47d3ce673a4a43a69178a
Tree-SHA512: c3f52df20fd9d6b3b5aa65562cf5f7dce7b7f44c148b0f988f8b578fce2a28e9b7bf010f5f04bb5bf60f5272b2899f1dbbfb8aee81579c21c9cba559d1d2bb70
0b75a7f0680d16a41043864a897470324917b1e8 wallet: Reuse existing batch in CWallet::SetUsedDestinationState (João Barbosa)
01f45dd00eb032a19d142026e4d019944192da19 wallet: Avoid recursive lock in CWallet::SetUsedDestinationState (João Barbosa)
Pull request description:
This PR makes 2 distinct changes around `CWallet::SetUsedDestinationState`:
- 1st the recursive lock is removed and now it requires the lock to be held;
- 2nd change is to support, in the best case, just a wallet database flush when transaction is added to the wallet.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 0b75a7f0680d16a41043864a897470324917b1e8
MarcoFalke:
ACK 0b75a7f0680d16a41043864a897470324917b1e8
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 0b75a7f0680d16a41043864a897470324917b1e8. Code changes looks fine but PR description should be updated to say what benefits of the change are. I might have missed something, but I didn't see a place where multiple batches were used previously and a single batch was used now. So the main benefit of this change appears to be removing a recursive lock? And maybe moving toward a consistent convention for passing batch instances?
Tree-SHA512: abcf23a5850d29990668db20d6f624cca3e89629cc9ed003e0d05cde1b58ab2ff365034f156684ad13e55764b54c6c0c2bc7d5f96b8af7dc5e45a3be955d6b15
fab558612278909df93bdf88f5727b04f13aef0f doc: Use precise permission flags where possible (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Instead of mentioning the all-encompassing `-whitelist*` settings, change the docs to mention the exact permission flag that will influence the behaviour.
This is needed because in the future, the too-broad `-whitelist*` settings (they either include *all* permission flags or apply to *all* peers) might be deprecated to require the permission flags to be enumerated.
Alternatively, in the future there could be an RPC to set the net permission flags on an existing connection, in which case the `-whitelist*` terminology is of no help.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
reACK fab558612278909df93bdf88f5727b04f13aef0f
fjahr:
Code review ACK fab558612278909df93bdf88f5727b04f13aef0f
jonatack:
ACK fab558612278909df93bdf88f5727b04f13aef0f
Tree-SHA512: c7dea3e577d90103bb2b0ffab7b7c8640b388932a3a880f69e2b70747fc9213dc1f437085671fd54c902ec2a578458b8a2fae6dbe076642fb88efbf9fa9e679c
8a2a652e6fab5eb8224beefcc07d9011b61865a8 Remove redundant type information from rpc docs (David O'Callaghan)
Pull request description:
Simple edit of the RPC calls to remove redundant text ("A json object/array ...") from the beginning of help.
Fixes: #18258
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: cbbf760e0b7b4eda61c40b420ed77f5d878318e37b0eb13e63567212240b2c4ecc15d84030e98075e21c9ae9016539adfd201e5661ea824166a76d335180c32f
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Added the missing rpc in `protx` help.
Release notes can be found in https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5137
## 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
## What was done?
<!--- Describe your changes in detail -->
- `bls generate` and `bls fromsecret` rpcs will return `scheme` used to
serialise the public key. Valid returned values are `legacy` and`basic`.
- `bls generate` and `bls fromsecret`rpcs accept an incoming optional
boolean argument `legacy` that enforces the use of legacy BLS scheme for
the serialisation of the reply even if v19 is active.
## 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
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Platform and research team have requested this change.
## What was done?
`quorum info` was updated with the introduction of new field
`previousConsecutiveDKGFailures` that be returned only for rotated
LLMQs.
This field will hold the number of previously consecutive failed DGKs
for the corresponding quorumIndex before the currently active one.
Note: If no previously commitments were found then 0 will be returned
for `previousConsecutiveDKGFailures`.
Example:
- DKG `A` was successful
- DKG `B` failed
- DKG `C` failed
- DKG `D` was successful
- DKG `E` was successful
- `previousConsecutiveDKGFailures` = 0 when requesting for quorum `A`
(because `A` is the first ever created quorum for that quorumIndex)
- `previousConsecutiveDKGFailures` = 2 when requesting for quorum `D`
- `previousConsecutiveDKGFailures` = 0 when requesting for quorum `E`
## 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>
With 18.2, block
`0000000000000044356e582f9748f9baf084e5b7946e6386b32620d540830fda` is
marked invalid with `bad-qc-invalid`.
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
While the 19 isn’t active -> Calculate rotation members based on 18.1
code
Once 19 active -> Calculate rotation members based on 18.2 code
## 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
<!--
*** 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. -->
This fixes an issue where qfcommit messages can be replayed from the
past, then are validated and propagated to other nodes. This patch
changes it so that old qfcommits are not relayed.
## 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. -->
Deployed to a node, and ensured that the log messages are shown.
## 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. -->
- [ ] 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
Code was still using legacy scheme for `pubKeyOperator` of each
`CSimplifiedMNListEntry` while calculating `MerklerootMNList` while v19
HF was active.
## What was done?
When building `CSimplifiedMNList` for `MerklerootMNList`, this PR adds
the correct set of `nVersion` for `CSimplifiedMNListEntry` so that basic
scheme will be used instead of legacy.
Furthermore, DIP3 unit tests suites for v19 will test for 1000 blocks
instead of 900 to cover v19 activated period.
## 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
