2dabd78956 chore: update man pages for v22 (UdjinM6)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [ ] 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 2dabd78956
knst:
utACK 2dabd78956
Tree-SHA512: fc03af689e9c5be54f150d6727772038c70e1fafad0f450b431203aa0e662873e17095e702c8d970eafdd92e386bb471d7894ba51bb72b166fadefabdfaad116
2712968384 chore: bumped chain assumed sizes based on latest usage (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Release process item to bump assumed size
## What was done?
bump sizes as manually calculated
## 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
- [ ] 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
knst:
ACK 2712968384
kwvg:
utACK 2712968384
Tree-SHA512: d0131d692f4ccc858dcc4fff3c494b44bf9f702e2e7a9172d166c53dc693d6eb90e9c86ff412b31defa4cff13e21099808d9fb2ea2174032e6fe79339b1a57d4
bbcc0169f1 test: small improvements in feature_governance.py (UdjinM6)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Make debugging test failures a bit easier by adding some more logs and ensuring vote propagation before moving any further.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [ ] 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK bbcc0169f1
knst:
utACK bbcc0169f1
Tree-SHA512: d4f7d7b560b1de849c30db598290af26d807a39b39a7532d2fe3d76c74c0d49ee294e4fac533a19a4a02dbf4f46d56f4b5e0116855a392fbbc992068cb17d38e
09058e0d71 feat: mnauth always use basic scheme (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently, mnauth has to check status of v19 hard fork. While this isn't soo terrible, it's not needed anymore. On mainnet or testnet, any mn you possible connect to will have it's TIP past v19 HF, meaning in practice it will only ever send you basic scheme anyhow. Let's just harden it. I initially guarded this behind a new protocol version, but I do not think that is needed.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
This is potentially a breaking change for devnets, which are moving past the v19 hard fork, but on develop v19 activates at block 2 for devnets sooooo, this shouldn't be noticed.
## 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK 09058e0d71
knst:
utACK 09058e0d71
Tree-SHA512: 45483904135c90a507f2a1f61c4b06915eb7c02a29eeda254938624a2593aec86540fa360aea498428285b3c0e954c676510dcb128f4ec7062302293c134d517
e08068687c fix: don't shrink window when setting minimum width (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
Pull request description:
## Additional Information
* Closes https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/5886
* We've been setting restrictions on the width of the window since [dash#3734](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/3734) (see d351fca6a6 and c0447b0bc6), meaning, the behavior as described in [dash#5886](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/5886) has been present since v0.16 (v0.15 and earlier used the old UI design).
* We do not set any restrictions on height and in that respect, Dash Qt will behave similar to Bitcoin Qt in that it can be resized to be arbitrarily small.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Crossed compiled for `x86_64-w64-mingw32` and tested resulting `dash-qt.exe` on Windows 11 22H2 (Build 22621.431). Followed reproduction steps as mentioned in [dash#5886](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/5886), found width to persist even after closing Options modal using buttons and the close button on the top right.
## Breaking Changes
None expected.
## 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 **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_
ACKs for top commit:
PastaPastaPasta:
generally utACK e08068687c
UdjinM6:
utACK e08068687c
Tree-SHA512: ed3874c830c0ddf1a9e1166b75e3088969b7dfae8bca25af47045727e14a270ca2bb740e2c30b657b26a4b8e542dff8d898e5d5d2c9482d67da15578e0054632
a4378fc2ff fix(qt): emit dataChanged for the whole model in TransactionTableModel (UdjinM6)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Somehow a 500k+ txes wallet is MUCH more responsive with this patch. I'm not sure if it's macos only or not though, pls test.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run a wallet with 100k+ txes in it and send a tx or try changing units.
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [ ] 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
knst:
ACK a4378fc2ff
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK a4378fc2ff
Tree-SHA512: eb0116f99f145ee131bd4a69895c9384dc26fc113ee034a2af74a92b0770b33631455a79e5826dc004f922ac182481eb26c54255274e186a47da3796da9550a6
7d26061170 refactor: move `CConnman`, `PeerManager` out of `CCoinJoinClientQueueManager` ctor (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
953ba96ac9 refactor: move `CConnman` out of `CoinJoinWalletManager` ctor (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
ac930a84d8 refactor: remove unused `CConnman` from `CDeterministicMNManager` ctor (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
a14e604064 refactor: remove `CConnman`, `PeerManager` from `LLMQContext` ctor (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
d9e5cc7c9a refactor: move `PeerManager` out of `CInstantSendManager` ctor (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
82d1aed1d6 refactor: move `CConnman`, `PeerManager` out of `CSigSharesManager` ctor (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
7498a38076 refactor: move `PeerManager` out of `CSigningManager` ctor (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
7ebc61e375 refactor: move `CConnman` out of `CQuorumManager` ctor (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
c07b522baa refactor: move `CConnman` out of `CDKGSession{,Handler,Manager}` ctor (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
01876c7e56 refactor: move `PeerManager` out of `CDKGSession{,Handler,Manager}` ctor (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
cc0e771c29 refactor: start BLS thread in `LLMQContext` ctor, move `Start` downwards (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
Pull request description:
## Additional Information
* Depends on https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6425
* Dependency for https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6304
* In order to reduce the logic used in chainstate initialization (that will be split out of `init.cpp` in [bitcoin#23280](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23280)), the spinning up of threads (as done in `LLMQContext::Start()`) needs to be moved down.
* They were moved up in [dash#5752](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5752) as `CBLSWorker` is a part of `LLMQContext` and `CBLSWorker` is needed during chainstate verification. As suggested in dash#5752, an alternate fix to the one already merged in was to move `CBLSWorker` `Start()`/`Stop()` to the constructor, which is done here.
* Another alternate fix is that we move it out of `LLMQContext` entirely and let it remain in `NodeContext` though this approach has not been taken.
* The reason we cannot retain the status quo is because `bitcoin-chainstate` (the binary introduced in [bitcoin#24304](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24304) that's built on the code split off in [bitcoin#23280](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23280)) aims to be devoid of P2P logic and this is reflected in the source files used to build it ([source](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24304/files#diff-4cb884d03ebb901069e4ee5de5d02538c40dd9b39919c615d8eaa9d364bbbd77R794)). (Also, there's no `NodeContext`, [source](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24304/files#diff-4cb884d03ebb901069e4ee5de5d02538c40dd9b39919c615d8eaa9d364bbbd77R795-R798))
* This means need to separate P2P and validation components from Dash-specific logic in order for the split to work as expected. This PR is a step in that direction by moving P2P elements (`CConnman` and `PeerManager`) out of constructors.
* As it stands, there are two sources for Dash-specific components to have access to P2P components, initialization (e.g. through `LLMQContext::Start()` or `PeerManagerImpl::ProcessMessage()`).
## Breaking Changes
None expected. While changes are present in initialization order, consensus behaviour should remain unchanged.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_
ACKs for top commit:
knst:
utACK 7d26061170
UdjinM6:
utACK 7d26061170
Tree-SHA512: 4f12cbda935cad3a186acb31fed513cea489b0d3a55aa80be8e1336d10cbe1579d6d3db862a78a167134650c9e97816732acaf0c85ab759f6555b1b6be99ec02
40070c0337 stats: don't report `network.*hashesPerSecond` if it's zero (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
b39c6b9909 fix: avoid potential divide-by-zero in H/s stats calculation (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
Pull request description:
## Additional Information
It was reported that on occasion, `network.*hashesPerSecond` would report NaN gauge values, which would be dismissed as malformed reporting by Grafana (see below). Those gauges use a simplified version ([source](1ecfb891bc/src/init.cpp (L851-L864))) of `GetNetworkHashPS` ([source](1ecfb891bc/src/rpc/mining.cpp (L61))), crucially, without a check meant to avoid divide-by-zeros ([source](1ecfb891bc/src/rpc/mining.cpp (L89-L91))).
<details>
<summary>Error log (courtesy of PastaPastaPasta):</summary>
```
[...]
graphite-1 | 7 Dec 21:18:05 - DEBUG: Bad line: -nan,g in msg "network.terahashesPerSecond:-nan|g"
graphite-1 | 7 Dec 21:18:05 - DEBUG: Bad line: -nan,g in msg "network.petahashesPerSecond:-nan|g"
graphite-1 | 7 Dec 21:18:05 - DEBUG: Bad line: -nan,g in msg "network.exahashesPerSecond:-nan|g"
graphite-1 | 7 Dec 21:18:10 - DEBUG: Bad line: -nan,g in msg "network.hashesPerSecond:-nan|g"
graphite-1 | 7 Dec 21:18:10 - DEBUG: Bad line: -nan,g in msg "network.terahashesPerSecond:-nan|g"
graphite-1 | 7 Dec 21:18:10 - DEBUG: Bad line: -nan,g in msg "network.petahashesPerSecond:-nan|g"
graphite-1 | 7 Dec 21:18:10 - DEBUG: Bad line: -nan,g in msg "network.exahashesPerSecond:-nan|g"
graphite-1 | 7 Dec 21:18:15 - DEBUG: Bad line: -nan,g in msg "network.hashesPerSecond:-nan|g"
[...]
```
</details>
This has been resolved by adding that check, alongside encapsulating the logic in a lambda and not reporting the gauge values if the estimated hashes per second reported is zero, due to the unlikelihood of it being correct.
## Breaking Changes
None expected.
## Checklist
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK 40070c0337
knst:
utACK 40070c0337
Tree-SHA512: 64bcca0f51a8bebb090613d3495ddba481ea6464f9f4a6791d830593fd1401c890eba65869f8719c6c6033a3346af11f16855a95fec5f42722b26a12b9f8b3c9
fixup: drop CChain from mnauth ProcessMessage
feat: let RPC mnauth to generate only BASIC bls messages and fixes for rpc_mnauth.py and p2p_quorum_data.py
refactor: drop unused ConstCBLSPublicKeyVersionWrapper
It's more likely that the stat is broken than the network running with
such low difficulty, the hash rate is reported as zero.
`*hashesPerSecond` are a gauge and we should let the last known good
value linger instead of potentially overwriting it with an improbable
value.
87b3c7f5d1 docs: update supported versions in SECURITY.md (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
Pull request description:
## Additional Information
Updates the supported versions list in `SECURITY.md`
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests **(note: N/A)**
- [x] 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
knst:
utACK 87b3c7f5d1
UdjinM6:
utACK 87b3c7f5d1
Tree-SHA512: 2a196b0e07e40a557f87a5137ede7d3984f14f48dedbec742e540c9ff1a9a762eccb317b35d102154745756cb83145ce5577495c2a2e581691edcfb0fa18553c
1ecfb891bc chore: bump MIN_MASTERNODE_PROTO_VERSION to latest proto (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Bump minimum master node protocol version to latest protocol.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
Masternodes that don't upgrade will end up getting a PoSe ban
## 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK 1ecfb891bc
kwvg:
utACK 1ecfb891bc
Tree-SHA512: 18e0620370924c4f9b0c72b9f384a7b627b9d395b4a4a942d1eaabd8f4294869fb5831c8d237b825053a0ca5aa143cfbb4726312877670088333faa04ab10ef2
e50a9be1540c769a99fcdc1f7a109a6bf1c7516b Remove outdated comment on CFeeRate (Murch)
Pull request description:
This comment described how the constructor of CFeeRate was previously indirectly used to parse fee rate arguments from RPCs. The command line input was actually in sat/vB but due to the use of AmountFromValue() it got converted to BTC/vB which then got rectified in the constructor by creating a CFeeRate from that given value and COIN as the transaction size. Since this usage pattern was removed from the codebase some months ago, the comment is now obsolete.
ACKs for top commit:
michaelfolkson:
ACK e50a9be1540c769a99fcdc1f7a109a6bf1c7516b
jonatack:
ACK e50a9be1540c769a99fcdc1f7a109a6bf1c7516b
Tree-SHA512: f17bf0baeeca85a5c7883edadd407da845f6e3af1c949e93116bd67c02e601682a5f7f1ab2497172472e3acf1c4e3c234b01161a77e7d7f028e3551da34777f0
ce690847b69eb80b0232f818152dbb1db7c4c61a cli: describe quality/recency filtering in -addrinfo (Jon Atack)
7c975614c0fc6ff2084a1708a4c1f0368a4bc98f rpc: describe quality/recency filtering in getnodeaddresses (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
Addresses #24278.
```
$ bitcoin-cli help getnodeaddresses
getnodeaddresses ( count "network" )
Return known addresses, after filtering for quality and recency.
These can potentially be used to find new peers in the network.
The total number of addresses known to the node may be higher.
```
```
$ bitcoin-cli -help | grep -A3 addrinfo
-addrinfo
Get the number of addresses known to the node, per network and total,
after filtering for quality and recency. The total number of
addresses known to the node may be higher.
```
ACKs for top commit:
mzumsande:
Thanks, Code Review ACK ce690847b69eb80b0232f818152dbb1db7c4c61a
prayank23:
reACK ce690847b6
Tree-SHA512: 82d23b15e64a99411eb8e70d7267a1b4f23182fabe072e824277569d9677e392b466be63f00e3d157d7db94bbe032d53f12ad4ab30b55b7b8a629c37d80d1d8c
62cc138ecb9cc7afcbe6fdb42b060a8f149826de Rename wallet-tool to bitcoin-wallet in code comment (Kristaps Kaupe)
0db3ad3ba41a76dff80bcb5f292e587da400ebf1 Mention -signet in bitcoin-wallet help output (Kristaps Kaupe)
Pull request description:
* Mention `-signet` in sentence where there is already `-testnet/-signet` in help output.
* Rename `wallet-tool` to `bitcoin-wallet` in single remaining place in code comments (was already done in #17648 at other places).
ACKs for top commit:
RandyMcMillan:
tACK 62cc138ecb
Tree-SHA512: c5df7811b8200f61943908dcf3b2b788fe991bf00bef28f069ab8784924556ffd5d86fc0ba2ad0b3c3f9be2ba73a34bc67059d7c057bba646c1801ffa3cb2070
fa8dad0e078c577d740a9667636733957586c035 rpc: Fix implicit-integer-sign-change in verifychain (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
It doesn't really make sense to treat `DEFAULT_CHECKLEVEL` as unsigned as long as `VerifyDB` accepts a signed integer.
Making it signed also avoids a cast round trip from signed->unsigned->signed in the RPC.
ACKs for top commit:
luke-jr:
utACK fa8dad0e078c577d740a9667636733957586c035
theStack:
Code-review ACK fa8dad0e078c577d740a9667636733957586c035
Tree-SHA512: 75499dbe4ace2962792e5fbec7defb10c25fdbbfde951d5e542a91daa880cc50395da0287173e2c84a28e18267c74af7b44b9f38ce364bcb0216c402f65b7641
a4da16fbd43ea1fff344f1602f7a5ace3d4a8a95 Improve -netinfo help based on feedback from users and devs (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
Clarify which networks are displayed by the peer counts table (*reachable* networks; follow-up to #23324) in response to questions received over the past months, and a few other improvements.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK a4da16fbd43ea1fff344f1602f7a5ace3d4a8a95
w0xlt:
ACK a4da16f
kristapsk:
utACK a4da16fbd43ea1fff344f1602f7a5ace3d4a8a95
Tree-SHA512: e6522c08421aa7f10d50723156d0a8fc5ec82cad2f0bd931bbec603077fcd4921c6505ef743d57386fba81c95dcfc77df75abf3378319886368e4ae33f9a6d73
d296005194 fix(qt): allow refreshing wallet data without crashing (UdjinM6)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
We re-use `refreshWallet` method to optimise loading for huge wallets https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5453.
However gui121 backport (via 25f87b9434) added a condition that prevents this logic. Fix it by allowing explicit wallet refresh (force=true).
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
Open a wallet with 10k+ txes, do `rescanblockchain` via rpc console
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [ ] 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK d296005194c7bd8c65006ddf1b25052b2655c923;
Tree-SHA512: d308b3fe9c4fbbfbf2e2339aa14c825aa6f69c72d1f04dab7a14dc1c8721138beca47c7b3801db9782d6cecf2c54023a19a6d22e04b84615f9bddb0b8ec1696c
dfe86b4fb2 fix: follow-up fixes (UdjinM6)
a254a7b70c refactor: sping LogAcceptCategory and LogAcceptDebug (Konstantin Akimov)
82238e6be2 refactor: Set log level in `LogAcceptCategory()` to `Debug` by default (UdjinM6)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
#6399 introduced severity-based logging via b046e091c9. We use `LogAcceptCategory()` in quite a few places and it's always `BCLog::Level::Debug` so log level is kind of redundant for us and just makes it harder to read the code.
## What was done?
~Set log level in `LogAcceptCategory()` to `BCLog::Level::Debug` by default~. Introduce `LogAcceptDebug()` which is `LogAcceptCategory()` with `Debug` level. Simplify corresponding Dash-specific code.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [ ] 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
kwvg:
utACK dfe86b4fb2
Tree-SHA512: 167da533af088c4a3bfca22abd223a2314848ec79af10f117368f6d94a4a7faa3b009477a7af455ff890f8001622494c1e3a05112f9a7204321cc237278bf387
24dcce979b fix: store ready queues on the mixing masternode (UdjinM6)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
We normally do not re-relay/store "ready" `dsq`-s because these are ment to be relayed between mixing clients and the mixing masternode only. I works ok when you simply send `dsq` messages because no extra steps are required. However since 70235 we send `dsq` _`inv`-s_ first and we send actual `dsq`-s only if they are requested via `getdata`. The problem here is that `ProcessGetData()` queries `vecCoinJoinQueue` via `GetQueueFromHash()` to get the data to send back but there is none because we never saved it.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
To test this patch you need a MN but you can test 2 cases _without this patch_ to indirectly test the idea:
1. try mixing on develop: almost no mixing txes, maybe 10 or so in an hour if you are lucky to mix on an old MN that often
2. ignore old MNs (`MIN_PEER_PROTO_VERSION = 70235`): 0 mixing txes, no matter how long you wait
3. pretend being an old client to receive no-inv `dsq` only (`PROTOCOL_VERSION = 70233`): no issues, mixing on these nodes is as fast as usual, several txes per block (need a couple of nodes like that on the network so that a mixing session could be completed, I'm running one node for now so that anyone could join and test it)
I'm running a testnet MN with this fix and applied "ignore old mn" patch on my local machine. Local wallet got mixing tx when it finally hit the patched mn. Also confirmed this via MN`debug.log` (`Create`/`Relay`/`CommitFinalTransaction` in logs).
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [ ] 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 24dcce979b
Tree-SHA512: 69cee5401d26eec3f66166a754b8020e7f550dac4a0fdea8ec48ea1082f1286e647ac0a26a189c4d39e1a9da4e7ac36f71913684b13ea0fb4b3cfe831174970e
Alternate fix as proposed in dash#5752, needed because dependencies for
threaded logic will be pulled out of ctor in upcoming commits and that
needs `Start` to be pushed downwards so we can avoid having to pass
`unique_ptr` references.
2fa480a878 partial bitcoin#25288: Reliably don't start itself (lint-all.py runs all tests twice) (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
bda1e03b24 merge bitcoin#24982: Port `lint-all.sh` to `lint-all.py` (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
b054a0d894 merge bitcoin#24840: port `lint-shell.sh` to python (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
973ca7b46f merge bitcoin#23506: Make more shell scripts verifiable by the `shellcheck` tool (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
694c1a4582 merge bitcoin#24929: convert shell locale linter test to Python (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
2a7d32a5e6 merge bitcoin#24916: Convert lint-python-utf8-encoding.sh to Python (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
0321fa053a merge bitcoin#24915: Convert lint-circular-dependencies.sh to Python (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
e3dc4b1e27 merge bitcoin#24902: Convert lint-include-guards.sh to Python (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
fc48a134b5 merge bitcoin#23524: Fix typos in endif header comments (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
1f8c3b5e95 merge bitcoin#24794: Convert Python linter to Python (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
110b6ac3dc partial revert dash#4807: enable more multi-threading and caching in linters (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
Pull request description:
## Additional Information
* Depends on https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6428
* The introduction in `flake8-cached` for `lint-python.sh` in [dash#4807](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/4807) was reverted as this logic wasn't going to be ported over to the Python replacement as the `flake8-cached` repo has been archived since April 2023 ([source](https://github.com/jnoortheen/flake8-cached)) and we don't use it in CI through GitLab ([build](https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/jobs/8456994796#L144)) or GitHub Actions ([build](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/actions/runs/11981121905/job/33406844883#step:7:75)).
* [bitcoin#25288](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25288) has been marked as partial as the change of the glob pattern from `{mod_path}/lint-*` to `{mod_path}/lint-*.py` as we still have `lint-cppcheck-dash.sh` around ([source](b88d9910a8/test/lint/lint-cppcheck-dash.sh)) (and the original `cppcheck` linter upstream was removed in [bitcoin#25091](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25091)).
A Python port of that linter would allow for completing [bitcoin#25288](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25288).
## Breaking Changes
None expected.
## Checklist
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
- [x] 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK 2fa480a878
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 2fa480a878
Tree-SHA512: 48ddf11be11232df26051b39dfadac9f363d2f201b9f303cad6ddd54550e2f1881947061155da9d4eaf3f5a87cdd371368dc36b4d70eb81ff4c48a7a93af63ae
bb5d70c8d6 refactor: convert IsInvInFilter to accept a const Peer&, introduce const version of GetTxRelay (pasta)
30fc76c397 fix: simplify logic in AskPeersForTransactions and remove erroneous negative EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED (pasta)
090ae9237e refactor: move CInstantSendManager::AskNodesForLockedTx into PeerManager (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Instantsend manager currently relies on CConnMan, which is not needed. The function AskNodesForLockedTx is all networking logic anyhow, and these no reason why this logic would be contained to instantsend processing. Move it into net_processing instead.
## What was done?
**This does change the logic!** We no longer prioritize asking MNs. This is probably fine? I don't specifically recall why we wanted to ask MNs besides potentially that they may be higher performing or better connected? We can potentially restore this logic once we bring masternode connection logic into Peer
Does also change logic, by short-circuiting once peersToAsk is full.
This commit has the added benefit of reducing contention on m_nodes_mutex due to no-longer calling connman.ForEachNode not once but twice
This may slightly increase contention on m_peer_mutex; but that should be an ok tradeoff for not only removing dependencies, but also reducing contention on a much more contested RecursiveMutex
## How Has This Been Tested?
Built, local tests
## 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
kwvg:
ACK bb5d70c8d6
UdjinM6:
utACK bb5d70c8d6
Tree-SHA512: c06e4f80a1d19c109fb12b626028b3655c315f203ef569e1af976b8530f4b36172d42cf83c91080ecfddbe740e394f379adc3f98ae4f4e3811e1c8614ea4a7f4
f25a93647b build: stop tracking cmake dependency relic_conf.h.in (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
62fa66524c Squashed 'src/dashbls/' changes from 4e070243ae..7e747e8a07 (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
b1b3840ac5 revert: stop tracking cmake dependency relic_conf.h.in (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
Pull request description:
## Additional Information
* Closes https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/6343
* Includes [bls-signatures#102](https://github.com/dashpay/bls-signatures/pull/102) and [bls-signatures#104](https://github.com/dashpay/bls-signatures/pull/104)
## Breaking Changes
None expected.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_
ACKs for top commit:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK f25a93647b
UdjinM6:
utACK f25a93647b
Tree-SHA512: 394a02a50f57538e9d12f836fd1ea1598d8a20e2d0079fcb44bb317a42a64a638a1ef906222f2d3bab06d2c0b8cfac43c6e0055d87fbdb86abe680c53ecd6b7a
