9b74461fa293453a9eb0b1717b30b3f7fa778d91 refactor: Assert before dereference in CWallet::GetDatabase (João Barbosa)
021feb3187b207d511561c1f0ffd7f9e5e0c9c1d refactor: Drop redudant CWallet::GetDBHandle (João Barbosa)
Pull request description:
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
Code Review ACK 9b74461fa293453a9eb0b1717b30b3f7fa778d91
meshcollider:
utACK 9b74461fa293453a9eb0b1717b30b3f7fa778d91
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 9b74461fa293453a9eb0b1717b30b3f7fa778d91. Changes since last review: rebasing due to conflict, dropping wallet path commit c6a5cd7a64c78b162f545a3467d0fea7dcaadfcc as suggested in discussion, making GetDatabase() const in the earlier commit. Giving more descriptive title like
Tree-SHA512: 68cf3b5e9fe0acb3a5cd081086629989f213f1904cc344e5775767b56759a7d905b1e1c303afbe40f172ff81bf07f3719b59d8f6ec2de3fdd53cd0e2d220fb25
17a5f172fa9ec509b1c3f950ee8dfb6f025534d2 fuzz: Make addrman fuzzing harness deterministic (practicalswift)
Pull request description:
Make `CAddrMan` fuzzing harness deterministic.
See [`doc/fuzzing.md`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/fuzzing.md) for information on how to fuzz Bitcoin Core. Don't forget to contribute any coverage increasing inputs you find to the [Bitcoin Core fuzzing corpus repo](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/qa-assets).
Happy fuzzing :)
ACKs for top commit:
Crypt-iQ:
utACK 17a5f172fa9ec509b1c3f950ee8dfb6f025534d2
Tree-SHA512: 725f983745233e9b616782247fa18847e483c074ca4336a5beea8a9009128c3a74b4d50a12662d8ca2177c2e1fc5fc121834df6b459ac0af43c931d77ef7c4d8
e416cfc92bf51f6fd088ab61c2306c5e73877dd0 Add MAX_STANDARD_SCRIPTSIG_SIZE to policy (sanket1729)
Pull request description:
Bitcoin core has a standardness rule for max satisfaction script sig size.
This PR adds to the policy header file so that it is documented along with
along policy rules. The initial reasoning that 1650 is an implicit
limit(would not reach assuming all other policy rules are being
followed) is outdated.
As we now know, bitcoin transactions can have spend conditions are more than
just signatures and there may exist p2sh transactions involving 100 byte
preimages that maybe non-standard because of this rule. Because this
rule is no longer implicit, we should explicitly document it in policy
header file
ACKs for top commit:
sipa:
utACK e416cfc92bf51f6fd088ab61c2306c5e73877dd0
practicalswift:
cr ACK e416cfc92bf51f6fd088ab61c2306c5e73877dd0
theStack:
Code Review ACK e416cfc92bf51f6fd088ab61c2306c5e73877dd0
Tree-SHA512: 1a91ee23dfb6085807e04dd0687d7a443e0f3e0f52d0a995a6599dff28533b0b599afba2724735d93948a64a3e25d0bc016ce3e771c0bd453eef78b22dc2369d
a6739cc86827759c543bf81f5532ec46e40549c3 rpc: Add specific error code for "wallet already loaded" (Wladimir J. van der Laan)
Pull request description:
Add a separate RPC error code for "wallet already loaded" to avoid having to match on message to detect this.
Requested by shesek for rust-bitcoinrpc.
If concept ACKed needs:
- [ ] Release note
- [x] A functional test (updated the existing test to make it pass, I think this is enough)
ACKs for top commit:
jonasschnelli:
Code Review ACK a6739cc86827759c543bf81f5532ec46e40549c3
promag:
Code review ACK a6739cc86827759c543bf81f5532ec46e40549c3.
Tree-SHA512: 9091872e6ea148aec733705d6af330f72a02f23b936b892ac28f9023da7430af6332418048adbee6014305b812316391812039e9180f7f3362d11f206c13b7d0
5021810650afc3073c2af6953ff046ad4d27a1fc Make CanFlushToDisk a const member function (practicalswift)
281cf995547f7683a9e9186bc6384a9fb6035d10 Do not run functions with necessary side-effects in assert() (practicalswift)
Pull request description:
Do not run functions with necessary side-effects in `assert()`.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK 5021810650afc3073c2af6953ff046ad4d27a1fc
sipa:
utACK 5021810650afc3073c2af6953ff046ad4d27a1fc
theStack:
Code Review ACK 5021810650afc3073c2af6953ff046ad4d27a1fc 🟢
Tree-SHA512: 38b7faccc2f16a499f9b7b1b962b49eb58580b2a2bbf63ea49dcc418a5ecc8f21a0972fa953f66db9509c7239af67cfa2f9266423fd220963d091034d7332b96
9a0653553a0ec403b4e7c6713466e0c7fa10ec94 Refactor ProcessNewBlock to reduce code duplication (R E Broadley)
Pull request description:
There are probably a few issues with this code (maybe there's even a reason this code is duplicated as it currently is), so apologies in advance that I'm still a little (maybe very) bad with C++
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK 9a0653553a0ec403b4e7c6713466e0c7fa10ec94 💻
promag:
Code review ACK 9a0653553a0ec403b4e7c6713466e0c7fa10ec94.
theStack:
Code-review ACK 9a0653553a0ec403b4e7c6713466e0c7fa10ec94 🌴
Tree-SHA512: f8634ffad4b2370204d1a0945db4e27248b9e579d9912784da432b8ee3303cae424fa9f7500000dcfb31e6d29d04a8f7d322d17a6fe3d4adaddd10c539458a8c
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Current implementation of MnEhfTx is not matched with DIP-0023, this PR
fixes it. It is a prior work for
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5469
## What was done?
- requestID is fixed from `clsig{quorumHeight}` to `mnhf{versionBit}` +
fixes for signature validation properly
- v20 is minimal height to accept MnEHF special transactions
- versionBit is not BLS version - removed unrelated wrong code and
validations
- TxMempool will accept MnEHF transaction even if inputs/outputs are
zeroes and no fee
- implemented python's serialization/deserialization of MnEHF
transactions for future using in functional tests
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run functional/unit tests. Beside that there's new functional test in
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5469 that actually test format of
transaction and signature validation - to be merged later.
## Breaking Changes
Payload of MnEhf tx is changed, related consensus rules are changed.
## 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
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
f827e151a2ce96e14aadb9e7d25045fe0a8afbd2 refactor: remove straggling boost::mutex usage (fanquake)
Pull request description:
After the merge of #18710, the linter is warning:
```bash
A new Boost dependency in the form of "boost/thread/mutex.hpp" appears to have been introduced:
src/sync.cpp:#include <boost/thread/mutex.hpp>
src/test/sync_tests.cpp:#include <boost/thread/mutex.hpp>
^---- failure generated from test/lint/lint-includes.sh
```
#18710 removed `boost/thread/mutex.hpp` from lint-includes, however in the interim #19337 was merged, which introduced more `boost::mutex` usage.
Given we no longer use `boost::mutex`, just remove the double lock test and remaining includes.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK f827e151a2ce96e14aadb9e7d25045fe0a8afbd2
hebasto:
ACK f827e151a2ce96e14aadb9e7d25045fe0a8afbd2
Tree-SHA512: f738b12189fe5b39db3e8f8231e9002714413a962eaf98adc84a6614fa474df5616358cfb1c89b92a2b0564efa9b704a774c49d4a25dca18a0ccc3cd9eabfc0a
89bdad5b25ae4ac03a486f729a5b58ae6f21946d RPC/Wallet: unloadwallet: Allow specifying wallet_name param matching RPC endpoint (Luke Dashjr)
Pull request description:
Allow specifying the `wallet_name` param to `unloadwallet` on RPC wallet endpoints, so long as it matches the endpoint wallet.
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
ACK 89bdad5b25ae4ac03a486f729a5b58ae6f21946d
MarcoFalke:
review ACK 89bdad5b25ae4ac03a486f729a5b58ae6f21946d
Tree-SHA512: efb399c33f7b5596870a26a8680f453ca47aa7a6db4e550f9435d13044f1c4bad0ae11e8f0205213409d08b75c4188c3be782e54aafab1f65b97eb8cf5c252a9
95975dd08d8fdaaeaf28e0d06b861ce2748c17b6 sync: detect double lock from the same thread (Vasil Dimov)
4df6567e4cbb4677e8048de2f8008612e1b860b9 sync: make EnterCritical() & push_lock() type safe (Vasil Dimov)
Pull request description:
Double lock of the same (non-recursive) mutex from the same thread would produce an undefined behavior. Detect this from `DEBUG_LOCKORDER` and react similarly to the deadlock detection.
This came up during discussion in another, related PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19238#discussion_r442394521.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
code review ACK 95975dd08d8fdaaeaf28e0d06b861ce2748c17b6
hebasto:
re-ACK 95975dd08d8fdaaeaf28e0d06b861ce2748c17b6
Tree-SHA512: 375c62db7819e348bfaecc3bd82a7907fcd8f5af24f7d637ac82f3f16789da9fc127dbd0e37158a08e0dcbba01a55c6635caf1d8e9e827cf5a3747f7690a498e
fabecce71909c984504c21fa05f91d5f1b471e8c net: Treat raw message bytes as uint8_t (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Using `uint8_t` from the beginning when messages are `recv`ed has two style benefits:
* The signedness is clear from reading the code, as it does not depend on the architecture
* When passing the bytes on, the need for static signedness casts is dropped, making the code a bit less verbose and more coherent
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK fabecce71909c984504c21fa05f91d5f1b471e8c
theStack:
Code Review ACK fabecce71909c984504c21fa05f91d5f1b471e8c
jonatack:
Tested ACK fabecce71909c984504c21fa05f91d5f1b471e8c
Tree-SHA512: e6d9803c78633fde3304faf592afa961ff9462a7912d1da97a24720265274aa10ab4168d71b6ec2756b7448dd42585321afee0e5c889e705be778ce9a330d145
fa5ed3b4ca609426b2622cad235e107d33db7b30 net: Use Span in ReceiveMsgBytes (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Pass a data pointer and a size as span in `ReceiveMsgBytes` to get the benefits of a span
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
ACK fa5ed3b4ca609426b2622cad235e107d33db7b30 code review, rebased to current master 12a1c3ad1a43634, debug build, unit tests, ran bitcoind/-netinfo/getpeerinfo
theStack:
ACK fa5ed3b4ca609426b2622cad235e107d33db7b30
Tree-SHA512: 89bf111323148d6e6e50185ad20ab39f73ab3a58a27e46319e3a08bcf5dcf9d6aa84faff0fd6afb90cb892ac2f557a237c144560986063bc736a69ace353ab9d
6927933782acb9b158787e6f35debb916793f6b1 [net processing] Add ChainSyncTimeoutState default initializers (John Newbery)
55966e0cc03f0e380d21a9434b048d4d515b6729 [net processing] Remove CNodeState ctor body (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
This addresses the two outstanding review comments from #21370.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
cr ACK 6927933782acb9b158787e6f35debb916793f6b1: patch looks correct
hebasto:
ACK 6927933782acb9b158787e6f35debb916793f6b1, I have reviewed the code and it looks OK, I agree it can be merged.
Tree-SHA512: b3ef5c8a096e447887df255406b3a760f01c73e2b942374595416b4b4031fc69b89cd93168c45040489d581f340b2a62d3fbabd207d4307f587c00a7a7daacd1
c92387232f750397da7d131f262c150a608408c2 refactor: Extract ParseOpCode from ParseScript (João Barbosa)
Pull request description:
Seems more natural to have `mapOpNames` "hidden" in `ParseOpCode` than in `ParseScript`.
A second lookup in `mapOpNames` is also removed.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK c92387232f750397da7d131f262c150a608408c2
theStack:
re-ACK c92387232f750397da7d131f262c150a608408c2
Tree-SHA512: d59d1964760622cf365479d44e3e676aa0bf46b60e77160140d967e012042df92121d3224c7551dc96eff5ff3294598cc6bade82adb3f60d28810e18e60e1257
33330778230961cfbf2a24de36b5877e395cc596 rpc: Adjust witness-tx deserialize error message (MarcoFalke)
cccc7525697e7b8d99b545e34f0f504c78ffdb94 rpc: Properly deserialize txs with witness before signing (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Signing a transaction can only happen when the transaction has inputs. A transaction with inputs can always be deserialized as witness-transaction. If `try_no_witness` decoding is attempted, this will lead to rare intermittent failures.
Fixes#18803
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 33330778230961cfbf2a24de36b5877e395cc596
ajtowns:
ACK 33330778230961cfbf2a24de36b5877e395cc596
Tree-SHA512: 73f8a5cdfe03fb0e68908d2fa09752c346406f455694a020ec0dd1267ef8f0a583b8e84063ea74aac127106dd193b72623ca6d81469a94b3f5b3c766ebf2c42b
9d09132be4ff99f98ca905c342347d5f35f13350 CConnman: initialise at declaration rather than in Start() (Anthony Towns)
Pull request description:
Ensure nMaxOutboundTotalBytesSentInCycle and nMaxOutboundCycleStartTime are initialized even if CConnman::Start() is not called. Prevents failures in test/fuzz/connman when run under valgrind.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK 9d09132be4ff99f98ca905c342347d5f35f13350: patch looks correct!
MarcoFalke:
review ACK 9d09132be4ff99f98ca905c342347d5f35f13350 , checked that we call Start only once and in the same scope where connman is constructed (AppInitMain) 💸
jnewbery:
Code review ACK 9d09132be4
Tree-SHA512: 1c6c893e8c616a91947a8cc295b0ba508af3ecfcdcd94cdc5f95d808cc93c6d1a71fd24dcc194dc583854e9889fb522ca8523043367fb0263370fbcab08c6aaa
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Fixes issue #5497.
## What was done?
Checks if settings file is empty, and deletes it if that's the case.
It will will be generated with default value `{}` afterwards.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Running Dash Qt on regtest masternode with `--nocleanup` and
`./src/qt/dash-qt --regtest --datadir=`
## Breaking Changes
No
## 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 _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
The logic for additional indexes is incomplete, handling of P2PK on
block disconnect is broken (luckily no one is using P2PK and reorgs are
rare) and there are a few other small issues that would be nice to have
fixed.
## What was done?
Pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run `feature_dbcrash.py`, it should succeed (NOTE: it takes ~30 minutes
to complete, that's normal).
Run `feature_addressindex.py`, `feature_timestampindex.py` and
`feature_spentindex.py` (and other tests) should still succeed too.
## 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
- [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)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
This is an implementation of DIP0027 "Credit Asset Locks".
It's a mechanism to fluidly exchange between Dash and credits.
## What was done?
This pull request includes:
- Asset Lock transaction
- Asset Unlock transaction (withdrawal)
- Credit Pool in coinbase
- Unit tests for Asset Lock/Unlock tx
- New functional test `feature_asset_locks.py`
RPC: currently locked amount (credit pool) is available through rpc call
`getblock`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
There added new unit tests for basic checks of transaction validity
(asset lock/unlock).
Also added new functional test "feature_asset_locks.py" that cover
typical cases, but not all corner cases yet.
## Breaking Changes
This feature should be activated as hard-fork because:
- It adds 2 new special transaction and one of them [asset unlock tx]
requires update consensus rulels
- It adds new data in coinbase tx (credit pool)
## 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
**To release DIP 0027**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Refusing to process `dsq` will result in node not being able to process
`dstx`es later.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## 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
V19 is active on mainnet/testnet now, no need to check activation bits
anymore. This PR also bumps `MinBIP9WarningHeight` to
post-v19-activation height which should stop `unknown new rules
activated (versionbit 8)` warning from appearing.
## What was done?
Bury v19, bump `MinBIP9WarningHeight`
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run tests, reindex on mainnet/testnet.
## 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)_
d76925478efd35e6fd835370639f2139b28381e4 [doc] Clarify semantic of peer's m_protect w.r.t to outbound eviction logics (Antoine Riard)
ac71fe936da290adf5a3155fe8db5f78b485f1f1 [doc] Clarify scope of eviction protection of outbound block-relay peers (Antoine Riard)
Pull request description:
Block-relay-only peers were introduced by #15759. According to its
author, it was intented to make them only immune to outbound peer
rotation-based eviction and not from all eviction as modified comment
leans to think of.
Clearly indicate that outbound block-relay peers aren't protected
from eviction by the bad/lagging chain logic.
Fix#19863
ACKs for top commit:
naumenkogs:
ACK d76925478efd35e6fd835370639f2139b28381e4
jonatack:
ACK d76925478efd35e6fd835370639f2139b28381e4
Tree-SHA512: 597fbd62838a6e39276024165b11514cad20a2e9d33cf9202d261cbadcb62b2df427c858e0cb57e585840d4c1d4600104aa53916bb868541f2580e4eed9b4b52
fab94534b64593be1620c989bf69eb02e1be9b1b doc: Document that wallet salvage is experimental (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
See #20151
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK fab94534b64593be1620c989bf69eb02e1be9b1b: user safety first
hebasto:
ACK fab94534b64593be1620c989bf69eb02e1be9b1b, maybe capitalize into "WARNING"?
meshcollider:
Trivial ACK fab94534b64593be1620c989bf69eb02e1be9b1b
Tree-SHA512: 94912c491facc485293e4333066057933d706d84c7172f615296e7ba998c583c8bd07e751e6f00cd6576e7791007ace321f959181f7bf6a4e15e10d7ec8a1b7e
fc289b7898fb90d4800675b69c0bb9b42df5599f wallet: Refactor WalletRescanReserver to use wallet reference (João Barbosa)
Pull request description:
Simple refactor to `WalletRescanReserver` to use wallet reference instead of pointer.
Complements #18259.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK fc289b7898fb90d4800675b69c0bb9b42df5599f
Tree-SHA512: b03e33f2d9df2870436aa3284137fd022dd89ea96a1b170fa27f8685ad4f986e6c4ba5975a84966c30d18430a4014d7d8740a1dff2f985c9ef8226ed18e69db9
a2324e4d3f47f084b07a364c9a360a0bf31e86a0 test: Improve naming and logging of avoid_reuse tests (Fabian Jahr)
1abbdac6777bc5396d17a6772c8176a354730997 wallet: Prefer full destination groups in coin selection (Fabian Jahr)
Pull request description:
Fixes#17603 (together with #17843)
In the case of destination groups of >10 outputs existing in a wallet with `avoid_reuse` enabled, the grouping algorithm is adding left-over outputs as an "incomplete" group to the list of groups even when a full group has already been added. This leads to the strange behavior that if there are >10 outputs for a destination the transaction spending from that will effectively use `len(outputs) % 10` as inputs for that transaction.
From the original PR and the code comment I understand the correct behavior should be the usage of 10 outputs. I opted for minimal changes in the current code although there maybe optimizations possible for cases with >20 outputs on a destination this sounds like too much of an edge case right now.
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
Re-ACK a2324e4
achow101:
ACK a2324e4d3f47f084b07a364c9a360a0bf31e86a0
kallewoof:
ACK a2324e4d3f47f084b07a364c9a360a0bf31e86a0
meshcollider:
Tested ACK a2324e4d3f47f084b07a364c9a360a0bf31e86a0 (verified the new test fails on master without this change)
Tree-SHA512: 4743779c5d469fcd16df5baf166024b1d3c8eaca151df1e8281b71df62b29541cf7bfee3f8ab48d83e3b34c9256e53fd38a7b146a54c79f9caa44cce3636971a
d67055e00dd90f504384e5c3f229fc95306d5aac Upgrade or rewrite encrypted key checksums (Andrew Chow)
c9a9ddb4142af0af5f7b1a5ccd13f8e585007089 Set fDecryptionThoroughlyChecked based on whether crypted key checksums are valid (Andrew Chow)
a8334f7ac39532528c5f8bd3b0eea05aa63e8794 Read and write a checksum for encrypted keys (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
Adds a checksum to the encrypted key record in the wallet database so that encrypted keys can be checked for corruption on wallet loading, in the same way that unencrypted keys are. This allows for us to skip the full decryption of keys upon the first unlocking of the wallet in that session as any key corruption will have already been detected. The checksum is just the double SHA256 of the encrypted key and it is appended to the record after the encrypted key itself.
This is backwards compatible as old wallets will be able to read the encrypted key and ignore that there is more data in the stream. Additionally, old wallets will be upgraded upon their first unlocking (so that key decryption is checked before we commit to a checksum of the encrypted key) and a wallet flag set indicating that. The presence of the wallet flag lets us skip the full decryption as if `fDecryptionThoroughlyChecked` were true.
This does mean that the first time an old wallet is unlocked in a new version will take much longer, but subsequent unlocks will be instantaneous. Furthermore, corruption will be detected upon loading rather than on trying to send so wallet corruption will be detected sooner.
Fixes#12423
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
code review ACK d67055e00dd90f504384e5c3f229fc95306d5aac
jonatack:
Code review ACK d67055e00dd90f504384e5c3f229fc95306d5aac
meshcollider:
Code review ACK d67055e00dd90f504384e5c3f229fc95306d5aac
Tree-SHA512: d5c1c10cfcb5db9e10dcf2326423565a9f499290b81f3155ec72254ed5bd7491e2ff5c50e98590eb07842c20d7797b4efa1c3475bae64971d500aad3b4e711d4
25dac9fa65243ca8db02df22f484039c08114401 doc: add release notes for explicit fee estimators and bumpfee change (Karl-Johan Alm)
05227a35545d7656450874b3668bf418c73813fb tests for bumpfee / estimate_modes (Karl-Johan Alm)
3404c1b753432c4859a4ca245f01c240610a00cb policy: optional FeeEstimateMode param to CFeeRate::ToString (Karl-Johan Alm)
6fcf4484302d13bd7739b617470d8c8e31974908 rpc/wallet: add two explicit modes to estimate_mode (Karl-Johan Alm)
b188d80c2de9ebb114da5ceea78baa46bde7dff6 MOVEONLY: Make FeeEstimateMode available to CFeeRate (Karl-Johan Alm)
5d1a411eb12fc700804ffe5d6e205234d30edd5f fees: add FeeModes doc helper function (Karl-Johan Alm)
91f6d2bc8ff4d4cd1b86daa370ec9d2d9662394d rpc/wallet: add conf_target as alias to confTarget in bumpfee (Karl-Johan Alm)
69158b41fc488e4f220559da17a475eff5923a95 added CURRENCY_ATOM to express minimum indivisible unit (Karl-Johan Alm)
Pull request description:
This lets users pick their own fees when using `sendtoaddress`/`sendmany` if they prefer this over the estimators.
ACKs for top commit:
Sjors:
re-utACK 25dac9fa65: rebased, more fancy C++,
jonatack:
ACK 25dac9fa65243ca8db02df2 I think this should be merged after all this time, even though it looks to me like there are needed follow-ups, fixes and test coverage to be added (see further down), which I don't mind helping out with, if wanted.
fjahr:
Code review ACK 25dac9fa65243ca8db02df22f484039c08114401
Tree-SHA512: f31177e6cabf3187a43cdfe93477144f8e8385c7344613743cbbd16e8490d53ff5144aec7b9de6c9a65eb855b55e0f99d7f164dee4b6bf3cfea4dce51cf11d33
fab860aed4878b831dae463e1ee68029b66210f5 fuzz: Stop nodes in process_message* fuzzers (MarcoFalke)
6666c828e072a5e99ea0c16394ca3e5b9de07409 fuzz: Give CNode ownership to ConnmanTestMsg in process_message fuzz harness (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Background is that I saw an integer overflow in net_processing
```
#30629113 REDUCE cov: 25793 ft: 142917 corp: 3421/2417Kb lim: 4096 exec/s: 89 rss: 614Mb L: 1719/4096 MS: 1 EraseBytes-
net_processing.cpp:977:25: runtime error: signed integer overflow: 2147483624 + 100 cannot be represented in type 'int'
SUMMARY: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: undefined-behavior net_processing.cpp:977:25 in
net_processing.cpp:985:9: runtime error: signed integer overflow: -2147483572 - 100 cannot be represented in type 'int'
SUMMARY: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: undefined-behavior net_processing.cpp:985:9 in
```
Telling from the line numbers, it looks like `nMisbehavior` wrapped around.
Fix that by calling `StopNodes` after each exec, which should clear the node state and thus `nMisbehavior`.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK fab860aed4878b831dae463e1ee68029b66210f5
Tree-SHA512: 891c081d5843565d891aec028b6c27ef3fa39bc40ae78238e81d8f784b4d4b49cb870998574725a5159dd03aeeb2e0b9bc3d3bb51d57d1231ef42e3394b2d639
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Here's TODO that seems out-dated
```
/// TODO: all 4 functions do not belong here really, they should be refactored/moved somewhere (main.cpp ?)
```
This changes are extracted from this PR:
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5342
## What was done?
This changes hides some methods from global namespace (making local
static function), hiding other functions to the namespace
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests
## 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
## What was done?
write in logs of TxMempool tx's hashes instead whole txes
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests
## 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
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Legacy IS messages are gone long time ago, no need to keep them in code.
## What was done?
Drop `MSG_LEGACY_TXLOCK_REQUEST`/`LEGACYTXLOCKREQUEST`
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run tests
## 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)_
