## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Some relatively simple refactoring; inspired by reviewing #5569; adds
some constification and some deglobalization
## What was done?
Partial deglobalization and constification
## How Has This Been Tested?
Building
## Breaking Changes
None
## 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
- [ ] 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 old evodb data wasn't dropped on db migration really.
`Erase(<db_key_prefix>)` does nothing.
## What was done?
Loop through the old data and drop it in batches per db key. Do this
both for nodes that are doing migration for the first time and for nodes
that did migration in the past already.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Running different versions on testnet
```
# reindex with 18.2.2 till block 850000 (pre-v19 block)
$ du -hd1 ~/.dashcore/testnet3/evodb/
276M .dashcore/testnet3/evodb
# continue with develop, migration just finished, keep syncing till current tip, block 901000+
$ du -hd1 ~/.dashcore/testnet3/evodb/
469M .dashcore/testnet3/evodb
# continue with this PR, start at current tip, "migration already done. cleaned old data."
$ du -hd1 ~/.dashcore/testnet3/evodb/
302M .dashcore/testnet3/evodb
```
## Breaking Changes
Should be none.
## 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
Seems as old command `git merge-base --fork-point` doesn't work for some
cases of tree structure
Particularly it didn't worked for PR #5546:
> @kwvg kwvg force-pushed the utilbps branch from 82d8a61 to f1bc1c3
Basically, one of the step `gfb` script -- `git merge-base --fork-point
develop 82d8a61d227fb66e2c6d4402ebb88e5740271eb9` returned me wrong
commit. After pulling origin/develop it returns just an empty string.
But `git show-branch --merge-base develop
82d8a61d227fb66e2c6d4402ebb88e5740271eb9` worked and returned correct
commit:
"3e1c6dd731 fix: reorder initializations (#5545)" which is the last
common commit with develop branch
## What was done?
Updated recommended function `function gfd()` in doc
## How Has This Been Tested?
Tested on PR #5546 that failed before and returned wrong diff for me
## 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
docs: add release notes for 5342
## How Has This Been Tested?
N/A
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Odysseas Gabrielides <odysseas.gabrielides@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Added release notes for #5121.
## 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
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Added release notes for #5493
## 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
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Tidy up things a bit, address concerns expressed in
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5565#discussion_r1315258917
## What was done?
Implemented changes to make sure `mapObjects` is protected
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run tests, run local node
## 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
Some headers or modules are used objects from STL without including it
directly, it cause compilation failures on some platforms for some
specific compilers such as #5554
## What was done?
Added missing includes and removed obsolete includes for `optional`,
`deque`, `tuple`, `unordered_set`, `unordered_map`, `set` and `atomic`.
Please, note, that this PR doesn't cover all cases, only cases when it
is obviously missing or obviously obsolete.
Also most of changes belongs to to dash specific code; but for cases of
original bitcoin code I keep it untouched, such as missing <map> in
`src/psbt.h`
I used this script to get a list of files/headers which looks suspicious
`./headers-scanner.sh std::optional optional`:
```bash
#!/bin/bash
set -e
function check_includes() {
obj=$1
header=$2
file=$3
used=0
included=0
grep "$obj" "$file" >/dev/null 2>/dev/null && used=1
grep "include <$header>" $file >/dev/null 2>/dev/null && included=1
if [ $used == 1 ] && [ $included == 0 ]
then echo "missing <$header> in $file"
fi
if [ $used == 0 ] && [ $included == 1 ]
then echo "obsolete <$header> in $file"
fi
}
export -f check_includes
obj=$1
header=$2
find src \( -name '*.h' -or -name '*.cpp' -or -name '*.hpp' \) -exec bash -c 'check_includes "$0" "$1" "$2"' "$obj" "$header" {} \;
```
## How Has This Been Tested?
Built code locally
## 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
Move funds from the coinbase, into the Asset Lock Pool. This is to incentivize MNs to upgrade to platform, because only MNs running platform will get these migrated rewards
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Set start time of signaling for v29 and mn_rr for Testnet at Friday,
September 1, 2023 0:00:00
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## 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
- [ ] 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
#5564 is a bit too optimistic about incoming triggers
## What was done?
Rework governance logic to only approve triggers that match our
expectations i.e. have the same data hash as our own trigger would have
if we would have to submit it.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run tests
## Breaking Changes
Voting is done in `CreateGovernanceTrigger` only now meaning that it
only happens on next block for incoming triggers. Tweaked tests
accordingly.
## 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
## What was done?
Added release notes for #5262.
## 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
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Added release notes for #5525.
## 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
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Let GUI users control all CJ params (on the fly) without the need to
edit `dash.conf`.
<img width="643" alt="Screenshot 2023-08-27 at 12 29 07"
src="https://github.com/dashpay/dash/assets/1935069/2d90db0d-c7b2-43a9-9f7f-1c4ad9517408">
## What was done?
Add 3 corresponding spin boxes in Options (with a simple sanity check).
I tried my best to come up with the least confusing labels/tooltips for
these, not sure if I'm 100% happy with the result though.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run qt wallet, play with values and make sure they are saved/loaded/used
in mixing correctly.
## 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)_
---------
Co-authored-by: Konstantin Akimov <knstqq@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
In case MNs didn't submit their own trigger, should vote for funding yes
when receiving triggers from other nodes.
## What was done?
Check if already submitted theirs and vote accordingly.
## 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
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## What was done?
- remove dependency of Asset Lock txes on CCreditPool
- new case for functional tests of Asset Locks - more than one output
for Asset Lock tx.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests
## Breaking Changes
Slightly changes behaviour of TxMempool. Tx can be accepted in mempool
even if Asset Unlock transaction with same index is already mined. But
final consensus rules are same.
## 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
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Since #5525, MNs during the maturity window, will propose new triggers.
In `CGovernanceManager::CreateSuperblockCandidate`, SuperBlock creation
is skipped when the bellow check is true:
`if (nHeight % Params().GetConsensus().nSuperblockCycle <
Params().GetConsensus().nSuperblockCycle -
Params().GetConsensus().nSuperblockMaturityWindow) return std::nullopt;
`
Hence, the value of `nSuperblockMaturityWindow` must be less than
`nSuperblockCycle` and greater than 0.
## What was done?
Changed `nSuperblockMaturityWindow` for devnet and Testnet chain
parameters to the following values:
`nSuperblockCycle` = 24
`nSuperblockMaturityWindow` = 8
## 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
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
With #5525 , MNs shouldn't use Sentinel anymore.
## What was done?
In order to force them to remove Sentinel:
- `gobject submit` RPC won't accept triggers anymore.
- `gobject vote-conf` RPC isn't available anymore.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_governance.py` and `feature_governance_object.py`
## Breaking Changes
Normally, only Sentinel should be broken.
## 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
- [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)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
a1d5b12ec07d2f7aa9fa955a6dd99e8a2be5cb25 Merge getreceivedby tally into GetReceived function (Andrew Toth)
Pull request description:
This PR merges the tally code of `getreceivedbyaddress` and `getreceivedbylabel` into a single function `GetReceived`. This reduces repeated code and makes it similar to `listreceivedbyaddress` and `listreceivedbylabel`, which use the function `ListReceived`. It will also make the change in #14707 simpler and easier to review.
ACKs for top commit:
theStack:
re-ACK a1d5b12ec0
meshcollider:
utACK a1d5b12ec07d2f7aa9fa955a6dd99e8a2be5cb25
Tree-SHA512: 43d9cd92f7c2c6a8b9c7509aa85a9b9233a6cfec1c43a9062e3bdfb83515413d1feafa8938c828351278ba22bd31c47e62ab5341e4bddc2493103b094d73b047
6f8b498d186df5aa08dbb9ca8fdeab6652f1db5e fuzz: http_request workaround for libevent < 2.1.1 (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
The fuzz test `http_request` calls the following two internal libevent functions:
* `evhttp_parse_firstline_`
* `evhttp_parse_headers_`
Before libevent 2.1.1 however, internal functions names didn't end with an underscore (see libevent commit 8ac3c4c25b and [Changelog for 2.1.1.-alpha](https://github.com/libevent/libevent/blob/master/ChangeLog#L1830) when the change was first mentioned) hence the build fails with a linking error.
This PR adds a preprocessor workaround to the test that checks for the libevent version (via ~`_EVENT_NUMERIC_VERSION`~ `LIBEVENT_VERSION_NUMBER`) and creates wrapper functions mapping to naming scheme without underscore in case the version is older than 2.1.1.
Tested with Ubuntu Xenial 16.04.6 LTS and clang-8.
ACKs for top commit:
hebasto:
ACK 6f8b498d186df5aa08dbb9ca8fdeab6652f1db5e, tested on xenial:
Tree-SHA512: 3b9e0147b8aea22e417d418e3b6d4905f5be131c2b0ae4b0f8b9411c5606d2e22f1b23e1ecc6980ecab907c61404de09e588aae1ac43cf70cf9e8d006bbdee73
0c6318788beaf1a31aeba5a21f3f8bb5c07cea6c ci: Limit cache size regardless of NO_DEPENDS (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
Close#18666.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK 0c6318788beaf1a31aeba5a21f3f8bb5c07cea6c . Depends has ccache disabled anyway and is cached regardless of whether ccache is there or not, see #17248
Tree-SHA512: b1bf98be0f844b4704abd177841b014f3900be8160496f0d12596310db607b4f544547e8c3cbfcf17c086a78afd251653363f3dd467b769ac0062bc19adc8144
808ef36b89ea9ce72116bbd7ee479b984367dc60 [doc] Update thread information in developer docs (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
- DumpAddresses thread was removed in #5964
- Shutdown thread was removed in #5679
- Add new threads (scheduler, RPC worker, indexer, tor control)
- Small changes to documentation of other threads
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK 808ef36b89
hebasto:
ACK 808ef36b89ea9ce72116bbd7ee479b984367dc60.
Tree-SHA512: 85b6ace7bcc4dee030c63461bef1ded1a9581d4fa249c59f6fcd5d33d89c4357a6b8b35888ce0960f276d397b5e38a21e6c5d4b7b79544827a28c950e097b36d
0306d78cb49d1684cc96ba3512b582a1fdaf78cc Use getbalances in wallet_address_types tests (Jon Atack)
7eacdc5167c8db94df84e206db85817bc64e4921 Shift coverage from getunconfirmedbalance to getbalances in wallet_abandonconflict tests (Jon Atack)
3e6f7377f600e47e5e3d439fc5d6ccf3db210038 Improve getbalances coverage in wallet_balance tests (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
<strike>This PR updates several tests and then removes the `getunconfirmedbalance` RPC which was deprecated in facfb4111d14a3b06c46690a2cca7ca91cea8a96 a year ago.
Next steps: remove the deprecated `getwalletinfo` fields and the `getbalance` RPC in follow-ups, if there seems to be consensus on those removals.</strike>
Update:
`getunconfirmedbalance` RPC was deprecated in facfb4111d14a3b06c46690a2cca7ca91cea8a96 a year ago, but following the review comments below, this PR now only updates the test coverage to use `getbalances` while still leaving basic coverage for `getunconfirmedbalance` in wallet_balance.py.
That said, I've seen 3 regular contributors confused in the past 10 days by "DEPRECATED" warnings in the code that are not following the deprecation policy in [JSON-RPC-interface.md#versioning](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/JSON-RPC-interface.md#versioning).
ISTM these warnings should either be removed, or the calls deprecated (`-deprecatedrpc`), or the policy updated to describe these warnings as a pre-deprecation practice.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
utACK 0306d78cb
Tree-SHA512: 692e43e9bed5afa97d905740666e365f0b64e559e1c75a6a398236d9e943894e3477947fc11324f420a6feaffa0c0c1532aa983c50090ca39d06551399e6ddd1
