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
## 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>
## 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
9a40cfc558b3f7fa4fff1270f969582af17479a5 [refactor] use waiting inside disconnect_p2ps (gzhao408)
aeb9fb414e2d000830287d9dd3fed7fc2eb570d2 [test] wait for disconnect_p2ps to be reflected in getpeerinfo (gzhao408)
e81942d2e1288367e8da94adb2b2a88be99e4751 [test] logging and style followups for bloomfilter tests (gzhao408)
Pull request description:
Followup to #19083 which adds bloomfilter-related tests.
1. Make test_node `disconnect_p2ps` wait until disconnection is complete to avoid race conditions (and not place the burden on tests) from MarcoFalke's [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19083#discussion_r437383989). And clean up any redundant `wait_until`s in the functional tests.
2. Clean up style + logging in p2p_filter.py and p2p_nobloomfilter_messages.py and jonatack's other [comments](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19083#pullrequestreview-428955784)
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
Code review ACK 9a40cfc from re-reviewing the diff and `git range-diff 5cafb46 8386ad5 9a40cfc`
MarcoFalke:
ACK 9a40cfc558b3f7fa4fff1270f969582af17479a5 🐂
Tree-SHA512: 2e14b1c12fc08a355bd5ccad7a2a734a4ccda4bc7dc7bac171cb57359819fc1599d764290729af74832fac3e2be258c5d406c701e78ab6d7262835859b9a7d87
fa156999695ddaeb016d8320bee62f8d96679d55 test: Add basic test for BIP 37 (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
This does not add full coverage, but should be a good start and can be extended in the future. Currently, none of the BIP 37 p2p code has test coverage.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
Code review ACK fa156999695ddaeb016d8320bee62f8d96679d55 -- more testing coverage is better than less testing coverage
Tree-SHA512: d52e8be79240dffb769105c087ae0ae9305d599282546e4ca7379c4c7add2dbcd668265b46670aa07c357638044cf0f61a6fab7dba8971dd0f80c8f99768686e
45eff751c6d07007dabc365dc4c0e6c63e3fe5cf Add functional test for P2P eviction logic of inbound peers (Martin Zumsande)
Pull request description:
This adds a functional test for the eviction logic for inbound peers, which is triggered when the number of maximum connections is exceeded.
The functional test covers eviction protection for peers that have sent us blocks or txns recently, or that have faster pings. I couldn't find a way to test the logic of `CConnman::AttemptToEvictConnection` that is based on netgroup (see #14210 for related discussion)
Fixes#16660 (at least partially).
[Edit: Earlier, this PR also contained a unit test, which was removed after the discussion]
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
ACK 45eff751c6d07007dabc365dc4c0e6c63e3fe5cf
naumenkogs:
Tested ACK 45eff75
fjahr:
re-ACK 45eff751c6d07007dabc365dc4c0e6c63e3fe5cf
andrewtoth:
re-ACK 45eff751c6d07007dabc365dc4c0e6c63e3fe5cf
Tree-SHA512: 177208ab6f30dc62da1cc5f51e654f7c9770d8c6b42aca6ae7ecb30e29d3096e04d75739578e7d149a0f29dd92652b4a707e93c0f1be8aa7ed315e6ec3ab07a4
fa98e10d5efcd965ee224ec21c9e79ebb123f055 test: Remove leftover comment in mining_basic (MarcoFalke)
faedb50d89cf113084adfa50c280c295c95571a8 test: pep-8 mining_basic (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Remove an accidental leftover comment from #19082, which no longer applies and thus might be confusing
ACKs for top commit:
adamjonas:
code review ACK fa98e10
Tree-SHA512: c7f7f8f579b3c6e92f45769be0a7af1a421438a3f5524db5278b2269511a9e0e08f44e3836afb26727644035897ee51ff8296d13ce23030549e7403f57b40e40
6fc641644f7193365cf2b40f5cf20374ec871943 change blacklist to blocklist (TrentZ)
Pull request description:
Let's use a more appropriate and clear word and discard the usage of the blacklist. Blocklist is clear and shall make everyone happy.
ACKs for top commit:
amitiuttarwar:
ACK 6fc641644f7193365cf2b40f5cf20374ec871943
jonatack:
ACK 6fc641644f7193365cf2b40f5cf20374ec871943 git grep shows these two lines to be the only uses of the word in the codebase other than for specifying colors for the GUI.
sipsorcery:
ACK 6fc641644f7193365cf2b40f5cf20374ec871943 due to easy change.
Tree-SHA512: 12fd55ad5c79f1a227da90c7fa730972aae6b74ab1f9df79ec1e7d0eca05c383ef7d6ef5f353620a01da344db915005339b62ca0884179d0f47fbefb084c9efc
7daffc6a90a797ce7c365a893a31a31b0206985c [test] CScriptNum Decode Check as Unit Tests (Gillian Chu)
Pull request description:
The CScriptNum test (#14816) is a roundtrip test of the test framework. Thus, it would be better suited as a unit test. This is now possible with the introduction of the unit test module for the functional tests. See #18576.
This PR:
1. Refactors the CScriptNum tests into 2 unit tests, one in script.py and one in blocktools.py.
2. Extends the script.py CScriptNum test to trial larger numbers.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK 7daffc6a90a797ce7c365a893a31a31b0206985c
Tree-SHA512: 17a04a4bfff1b1817bfc167824c679455d9e06e6e0164c00a7e44f8aa5041c5f5080adcc1452fd80ba1a6d8409f976c982bc481d686c434edf97a5893a32a436
Name of some files in gitian's build contains "18" instead 19.
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Version bumped in gitian's related configs
## How Has This Been Tested?
Will be tested with next RC of v19
## Breaking Changes
No breaking changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
@PastaPastaPasta may you update release TODO checklist, please?
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
Builds are different, because git command output are different:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
in pr #5194 different OS produced different hashes of binary.
That's due to different behaviour of this command:
```sh
$ git rev-parse --short HEAD
b3f242da14 - on my localhost Kubuntu 22.10
b3f242da1 - inside pastapastapasta's docker
```
## What was done?
This fix forces to git print always 12 character
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run in different environment
## Breaking Changes
No breaking changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
