## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Remove dash-qt from docker images; save ~41MB
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
Hasn't
## Breaking Changes
I guess in theory someone could've been relying on dash-qt from docker 🤷
## 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)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
1. `scanQuorumsCache` is a special one and we use it incorrectly.
2. Platform doesn't really use anything that calls `ScanQuorums()`
directly, they specify the exact quorum hash in RPCs so it's
`GetQuorum()` that is used instead. The only place `ScanQuorums()` is
used for Platform related stuff is `StartCleanupOldQuorumDataThread()`
because we want to preserve quorum data used by `GetQuorum()`. But this
can be optimised with its own (much more compact) cache.
3. RPCs that use `ScanQuorums()` should in most cases be ok with smaller
cache, for other use cases there is a note in help text now.
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, run a node (~in progress~ looks stable)
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
old mode 100644
new mode 100755
## What was done?
`chmod +x test/functional/*.py`
## How Has This Been Tested?
can now run these test directly e.g. `./test/functional/rpc_quorum.py`
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`instantlock` and `chainlock` are broken in `getspecialtxes`
kudos to @thephez for finding the issue
## What was done?
pass the hash and also rename the variable to self-describing
## How Has This Been Tested?
run `getspecialtxes` on a node with and without the patch
## Breaking Changes
`instantlock` and `chainlock` will show actual values and not just
`false` all the time now (not sure if that qualifies for "breaking"
though)
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Once Platform is live, there could be an edge case where the CL could
arrive to an EvoNode faster through Platform quorum than regular P2P
propagation.
## What was done?
This PR introduces a new RPC `submitchainlock` with the following 3
mandatory parameters:
- `blockHash`, `signature` and `height`.
Besides some basic tests:
- If the block is unknown then the RPC returns an error (could happen if
the node is stucked)
- If the signature is not verified then the RPC return an error.
- If the node already has this CL, the RPC returns true.
- If the node doesn't have this CL, it inserts it, broadcast it through
the inv system and return true.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_llmq_chainlocks.py` was modified with the following scenario:
1. node0 is isolated from the rest of the network
2. node1 mines a new block and waits for CL
3. Make sure node0 doesn't know the new block/CL (by checking
`getbestchainlock()`)
4. CL is submitted via the new RPC on node0
5. checking `getbestchainlock()` and make sure the CL was processed +
'known_block' is false
6. reconnect node0
## Breaking Changes
no
## 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
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
1ea11e10acd60807a06adea5ecf553974a1b0346 doc: link to managing-wallets from doc readme (fanquake)
Pull request description:
This was forgotten in #22523.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 1ea11e10acd60807a06adea5ecf553974a1b0346
jarolrod:
ACK 1ea11e10acd60807a06adea5ecf553974a1b0346
Tree-SHA512: b82664b282cc0fe733b752c011621593df0f846d2188f12dbc5fedb7ffed2bd161293ce2a369ca973926030795b5f7acde7a1cbf5e337042a6f665906069c656
ce4e90629ed70f4d45906d7e79563b2f7ad6493e Document about wallet backup and restoration (lsilva01)
Pull request description:
This PR adds a document about backing up and restoring the Bitcoin Core wallet as suggested in the issue https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20149 .
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
re-ACK ce4e90629ed70f4d45906d7e79563b2f7ad6493e
prayank23:
reACK ce4e90629e
meshcollider:
re-ACK ce4e90629ed70f4d45906d7e79563b2f7ad6493e
Tree-SHA512: 68881fc1d81ff27cb59b891e6d422e303844a751afd9f4699f7ae505f204452afe9496c9be915ba94a7045f3cf3eaeb2af0e42ff2a12b4c77ef1f71a9de4faad
backports cc5a5e81217506ec6f9fff34056290f8f40a7396 only
```
wallet: bugfix, invalid crypted key "checksum_valid" set
At wallet load time, we set the crypted key "checksum_valid" variable always to false.
Which, on every wallet decryption call, forces the process to re-write the entire ckeys to db when
it's not needed.
```
da9caa1cedd69702aea44cb44b2fd0a2d6d56916 Replace fs::absolute calls with AbsPathJoin calls (Kiminuo)
66576c4fd532ac18b8b355ea93d25581a2c15654 test: Clear forced -walletdir setting after wallet init_tests (Kiminuo)
Pull request description:
This adds better test coverage and will make it easier in #20744 to remove our dependency on the two-argument boost::filesystem::absolute() function which does not have a direct equivalent in C++17.
This PR doesn't change behavior aside from adding an assert and fixing a test bug.
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
Code review ACK da9caa1cedd69702aea44cb44b2fd0a2d6d56916 only doxygen improvements since my last review per `git diff d867d7a da9caa1`
MarcoFalke:
review ACK da9caa1cedd69702aea44cb44b2fd0a2d6d56916 📯
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK da9caa1cedd69702aea44cb44b2fd0a2d6d56916. Just comment and test tweaks since previous review.
Tree-SHA512: c940ee60f3ba374d4927cf34cf12d27c4c735c94af591fbc0ca408c641b30f8f8fbcfe521d66bfbddf9877a1fc8cd99bd8a47ebcd2fa59789de6bd87a7b9cf4d
e4356f6a6c18e5027a064a4d3a5deda27985f584 Testcase for wallet issue with orphaned rewards. (Daniel Kraft)
Pull request description:
This adds a new test case demonstrating the wallet issue when block rewards are orphaned (#14148).
ACKs for top commit:
LarryRuane:
ACK e4356f6a6c18e5027a064a4d3a5deda27985f584
leonardojobim:
reACK e4356f6a6c .
Tree-SHA512: e9a2310ee1b3d52cfa302f431ed3d272bbc1b9195439ff318d9eb1006c0b28968dbe840e1600b6ff185e5d7ea57e4dcc837cef16051b5537445e10bc363b8c22
