fa92af5af39a08982f785542df5419d6d5a4706d ci: Run feature_block and feature_abortnode in valgrind (MarcoFalke)
fa01febeaf801bade77a613e64f18b556ae16d86 test: Remove ci timeout restriction in test_runner (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Also revert commit 0a4912e46a, because some tests take too long for this to be useful anymore.
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: 363f14766e1f4a5860ab668a516b41acebc6fbdf11d8defb3a95a772dbf82304ca1f5f14b1dbad97f2029503e03d92e8c69df0466a8872409c20665838f617ed
4444edc2e6671d3f73de3725447130f73ecf0375 ci: Enable all functional tests in valgrind (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
The travis timeout for our repo has been bumped to 2h, so we can run all tests in valgrind now
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK 4444edc2e6671d3f73de3725447130f73ecf0375 -- regarding the three disabled cases (`feature_abortnode`, `feature_block` and `rpc_bind`): not a big deal since MSan will take care of those once #18288 is merged. More is more :)
Tree-SHA512: ea2f798112911b6d1f3d88cfcdf0a7cdb698687248343703d6fe55da144542c961c15d888bffb41672c10aa76765615cb7c7ff93d468bfad3c51f962f24e7abb
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
current develop fails to reindex whenever there is an issue at node
start (prints `should not be overwriting a chainstate` in `debug.log`)
## What was done?
reset chainman to allow it re-initialize chainstate
## How Has This Been Tested?
simulated an issue with
```
if (!fReset) {
strLoadError = _("DEBUG");
break;
}
```
## Breaking Changes
should not be any but pls test
## 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
We should not be running jobs if their ancestors failed. This was broken
with the introduction of `FAST_MODE`/`.skip-in-fast-mode-template` I
think (via #3635).
## What was done?
Adjust ci rules, make them explicit.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Compare `test` stages:
https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/pipelines/888510672 (note: some of
`test` stage jobs were started, even though all related jobs from
`build` stage have failed)
vs
https://gitlab.com/UdjinM6/dash/-/pipelines/888923382 (note: none of
`test` stage jobs were started)
## 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
Member obj.keyIDOwner is read & write twice
## What was done?
Fixed: it is serialized once
## How Has This Been Tested?
Unit/functional tests in CI
## Breaking Changes
Data format in database changed in incompatible way
## 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
same as #5392, alternative solution
~based on #5402 atm, will rebase later~
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
reorg mainnet around forkpoint with a patched client (to allow low
difficulty), run tests
## Breaking Changes
Another evodb migration is required. Going back to an older version or
migrating after the fork requires reindexing.
## 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
Many objects created and functions called by passing `const
std::unique_ptr<Obj>& obj` instead directly passing `Obj& obj`
In some cases it is indeed needed, but in most cases it is just extra
complexity that is better to avoid.
Motivation:
- providing reference to object instead `unique_ptr` is giving warranty
that there's no `nullptr` and no need to keep it in mind
- value inside unique_ptr by reference can be changed externally and
instead `nullptr` it can turn to real object later (or in opposite)
- code is shorter but cleaner
Based on that this refactoring is useful as it reduces mental load when
reading or writing code.
`std::unique` should be used ONLY for owning object, but not for passing
it everywhere.
## What was done?
Replaced most of usages `std::unique_ptr<Obj>& obj` to `Obj& obj`.
Btw, in several cases implementation assumes that object can be nullptr
and replacement to reference is not possible.
Even using raw pointer is not possible, because the empty
std::unique_ptr can be initialized later somewhere in code.
For example, in `src/init.cpp` there's called `PeerManager::make` and
pass unique_ptr to the `node.llmq_ctx` that would be initialized way
later.
That is out of scope this PR.
List of cases, where reference to `std::unique_ptr` stayed as they are:
- `std::unique_ptr<LLMQContext>& llmq_ctx` in `PeerManagerImpl`,
`PeerManager` and `CDSNotificationInterface`
- `std::unique_ptr<CDeterministicMNManager>& dmnman` in
`CDSNotificationInterface`
Also `CChainState` have 3 references to `unique_ptr` that can't be
replaced too:
- `std::unique_ptr<llmq::CChainLocksHandler>& m_clhandler;`
- `std::unique_ptr<llmq::CInstantSendManager>& m_isman;`
- `std::unique_ptr<llmq::CQuorumBlockProcessor>&
m_quorum_block_processor;`
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests.
## Breaking Changes
No breaking changes, all of these changes - are internal APIs for Dash
Core developers only.
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
1ef28b4f7cfba410fef524def1dac24bbc4086ca Make AnalyzePSBT next role calculation simple, correct (Gregory Sanders)
Pull request description:
Sniped test and alternative to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18220
Sjors documenting the issue:
```
A PSBT signed by ColdCard was analyzed as follows (see #17509 (comment))
{
"inputs": [
{
"has_utxo": true,
"is_final": false,
"next": "finalizer"
}
],
"estimated_vsize": 141,
"estimated_feerate": 1e-05,
"fee": 1.41e-06,
"next": "signer"
}
I changed AnalyzePSBT so that it returns "next": "finalizer" instead.
```
It makes it much clearer that the role has been decided before hitting the `calc_fee` block, and groups all state-deciding in one spot instead of 2.
Note that this assumes that PSBT roles are a complete ordering, which for now and in the future seems to be a correct assumption.
ACKs for top commit:
Sjors:
ACK 1ef28b4f7cfba410fef524def1dac24bbc4086ca, much nicer. Don't forget to document the bug fix.
achow101:
ACK 1ef28b4f7cfba410fef524def1dac24bbc4086ca
Empact:
ACK 1ef28b4f7c
Tree-SHA512: 22ba4234985c6f9c1445b14565c71268cfaa121c4ef000ee3d5117212b09442dee8d46d9701bceddaf355263fe25dfe40def2ef614d4f2fe66c9ce876cb49934
ffff9dcdc3cbe427739cc19cc7a53f032474fa2a test: Explain why test logging should be used (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Background is that some tests don't have any `self.log` call at all. Thus there are no "anchor points" and those tests are hard to debug because the logs can't easily be parsed by a human.
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
ACK ffff9dcdc3cbe427739cc19cc7a53f032474fa2a
instagibbs:
ACK ffff9dcdc3
fanquake:
re-ACK ffff9dcdc3cbe427739cc19cc7a53f032474fa2a
Tree-SHA512: 08d962e85c4892c2a0c58feb5dc697c680a9d68e41a79417da6fcd415e0c5c735c4533a985cf225bb89deb5ca717d9bedf990657958079185804caa512b10f5a
b5795a788639305bab86a8b3f6b75d6ce81be083 Wallet: Add warning comments and assert to CWallet::DelAddressBook (Luke Dashjr)
6d2905f57aaeb3ec3b63d31043f7673ca10003f2 Wallet: Avoid unnecessary/redundant m_address_book lookups (Luke Dashjr)
c751d886f499257627b308b11ffaa51c22db6cc0 Wallet: Avoid treating change-in-the-addressbook as non-change everywhere (Luke Dashjr)
8e64b8c84bcbd63caea06f3af087af1f0609eaf5 Wallet: New FindAddressBookEntry method to filter out change entries (and skip ->second everywhere) (Luke Dashjr)
65b6bdc2b164343ec3cc3d32a0297daff9e24fec Wallet: Add CAddressBookData::IsChange which returns true iff label has never been set (Luke Dashjr)
144b2f85da4d51bf7d72b987888ddcaf5b429eed Wallet: Require usage of new CAddressBookData::setLabel to change label (Luke Dashjr)
b86cd155f6f661052042048aa7cfc2a397afe4f7 scripted-diff: Wallet: Rename mapAddressBook to m_address_book (Luke Dashjr)
Pull request description:
In many places, our code assumes that presence in the address book indicates a non-change key, and absence of an entry in mapAddressBook indicates change.
This no longer holds true after #13756 (first released in 0.19) since it added a "used" DestData populated even for change addresses. Only avoid-reuse wallets should be affected by this issue.
Thankfully, populating DestData does not write a label to the database, so we can retroactively fix this (so long as the user didn't see the change address and manually assign it a real label).
Fixing it is accomplished by:
* Adding a new bool to CAddressBookData to track if the label has ever been assigned, either by loading one from the database, or by assigning one at runtime.
* `CAddressBookData::IsChange` and `CWallet::FindAddressBookEntry` are new methods to assist in excluding change from code that doesn't expect to see them.
* For safety in merging, `CAddressBookData::name` has been made read-only (the actual data is stored in `m_label`, a new private member, and can be changed only with `setLabel` which updates the `m_change` flag), and `mapAddressBook` has been renamed to `m_address_book` (to force old code to be rebased to compile).
A final commit also does some minor optimisation, avoiding redundant lookups in `m_address_book` when we already have a pointer to the `CAddressBookData`.
ACKs for top commit:
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK b5795a788639305bab86a8b3f6b75d6ce81be083. Pretty clever and nicely implemented fix!
jonatack:
ACK b5795a788639305bab86a8b3f6b75d6ce81be083 nice improvements -- code review, built/ran tests rebased on current master ff53433fe4ed06893d7c4 and tested manually with rpc/cli
jnewbery:
Good fix. utACK b5795a788.
Tree-SHA512: 40525185a0bcc1723f602243c269499ec86ecb298fecb5ef24d626bbdd5e3efece86cdb1084ad7eebf7eeaf251db4a6e056bcd25bc8457b417fcbb53d032ebf0
d3bc18408146e91b3836f72360ff6fa2420b6887 doc: update release notes with getaddressinfo label deprecation (Jon Atack)
72af93f36479dc12d795f1d05fa3d8fbd9b293bd test: getaddressinfo label deprecation test (Jon Atack)
d48875fa20d0b71b978cb3d1f85dd9ec14e664cc rpc: deprecate getaddressinfo label field (Jon Atack)
dc0cabeda49a7edbfa71df22846721b6f6224aea test: remove getaddressinfo label tests (Jon Atack)
c7654af6f830577a54df12b5d65df93532db0dc2 doc: address pr17578 review feedback (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
This PR builds on #17578 (now merged) and deprecates the rpc getaddressinfo `label` field. The deprecated behavior can be re-enabled by starting bitcoind with `-deprecatedrpc=label`.
See http://www.erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/log-2019-11-22.html#l-622 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17283#issuecomment-554458001 for more context.
Reviewers: This PR may be tested manually by building, then running bitcoind with and without the `-deprecatedrpc=label` flag while verifying the rpc getaddressinfo output and help text.
Next step: add support for multiple labels.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
ACK d3bc18408146e91b3836f72360ff6fa2420b6887
laanwj:
ACK d3bc18408146e91b3836f72360ff6fa2420b6887
meshcollider:
utACK d3bc18408146e91b3836f72360ff6fa2420b6887
Tree-SHA512: f954402884ec54977def332c8160fd892f289b0d2aee1e91fed9ac3220f7e5b1f7fc6421b84cc7a5c824a0582eca4e6fc194e4e33ddd378c733c8941ac45f56d
fa5c6622c8ecf1954e7177888ad8c97a77b16fb7 doc: Use proper RPC help syntax in importmulti (MarcoFalke)
fab63111bec73859597e6ce0986f76e5e9959091 doc: Remove duplicate "comment" from listsinceblock RPC help (MarcoFalke)
fa04cd6cfc0330b62058ed169d621e08108dc87e doc: Properly document proxy_randomize_credentials as bool in getnetworkinfo (MarcoFalke)
fa9dec7c395897e8dbbb6de7a16ec5185a609d41 doc: Fix syntax error (trailing square bracket) in finalizepsbt (MarcoFalke)
faff5a60ed328d4c5fdef253e8935a351cb57bd0 doc: Fix syntax error (trailing square bracket) in walletprocesspsbt (MarcoFalke)
fa0545901daad32b09511cc61c4af1400c48088d doc: Add missing "optional" to "long" estimaterawfee RPC help (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
This fixes documentation of the following RPCs:
* estimaterawfee (hidden)
* https://bitcoincore.org/en/doc/0.19.0/rpc/wallet/walletprocesspsbt/
* https://bitcoincore.org/en/doc/0.19.0/rpc/rawtransactions/finalizepsbt/
* https://bitcoincore.org/en/doc/0.19.0/rpc/network/getnetworkinfo/
* https://bitcoincore.org/en/doc/0.19.0/rpc/wallet/listsinceblock/
* https://bitcoincore.org/en/doc/0.19.0/rpc/wallet/importmulti/
<!-- Also, it comes with a scripted diff to normalize whitespace and type names. (Previous attempts: #14601 and #14459)
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK fa5c6622c8ecf1954e7177888ad8c97a77b16fb7
Tree-SHA512: 5a10956e12f8ce23e93a2ce8bafd6cae759d8a21658f79397e3bfce3e4aabd9658bdbd40acde49323dca958a9befee7166654994208c182dd60f483109621e17
3e32499909ca8127baaa9b40ad113b25ee151bbd Change example addresses to bech32 (Yusuf Sahin HAMZA)
Pull request description:
This is a follow-up PR to #18197 that fixes RPCExamples.
Fixes#18185.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK 3e32499909ca8127baaa9b40ad113b25ee151bbd
jonatack:
ACK 3e32499
Tree-SHA512: c7a6410ef8b6e169016c2c5eac3e6b9501caabd0e8a0871ec31e56bfc44589f056d3f5cb55b5a13bba36f6c15136c2352f883e30e4dcc0997ffd36b27f9173b9
rpc: update validateaddress RPCExamples to bech32
also contains the following changes:
- rpc: factor out example bech32 address for RPCExamples
- doc: update developer notes wrt RPCExamples addresses
(mention the EXAMPLE_ADDRESS constant as an example for an invalid bech32
address suitable for RPCExamples help documentation)
42ec4994892e67e3430f867af069aafcc2e08593 doc: developer notes guideline on RPCExamples addresses (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
to make explicit the use of invalid addresses for user safety and to encourage
the use of bech32 addresses by default. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17578#discussion_r361752570 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17578#discussion_r362564492.
Fix a typo to appease the linter.
ACKs for top commit:
promag:
ACK 42ec4994892e67e3430f867af069aafcc2e08593, no strong opinion as whether this belongs to developer notes or not but why not.
fjahr:
ACK 42ec499
michaelfolkson:
ACK 42ec4994892e67e3430f867af069aafcc2e08593
Tree-SHA512: 64f90e227d256aa194c4fd48435440bdc233a51213dd4a6ac5b05d04263f729c6b4bb5f3afd3b87719b20cb1b159d5a9673d58a11b72823a4a6a16e8a26ae10e
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
fix a couple of issues in helpers, extend feature_dip3_v19.py to check
more after v19 fork
## What was done?
pls see individual PRs
## How Has This Been Tested?
run 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 _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently, Chainlocks are either enabled or disabled. This PR adds a
third state: enabled but we will not sign new ones.
Should probably backport this to v19.x
## What was done?
Spork state != 0 but active will now result in chain locks being
enforced but not created.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## 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)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
