18328279ec fix: force mnsync to skip gov obj sync on reconnection (UdjinM6)
08331bb950 fix: apply suggestions (UdjinM6)
3c3489d7a1 test: add test (UdjinM6)
41ab95dbf8 feat: skip governance checks for blocks below the best chainlock (UdjinM6)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
A node can miss governance trigger sometimes and then it would stuck not being able to sync any further. This issue can be fixed manually by resetting sync status and reconsidering the "invalid" block. However, that's inconvenient. Also, what it does under the hood is it simply disables some parts of block validation. We could do that automagically and more precise if we would trust ChainLocks instead.
## What was done?
Skip governance checks for blocks below the best known chainlock, add tests.
## 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
knst:
utACK 18328279ec
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 18328279ec
Tree-SHA512: 3cc4e2707e24b36c9f64502561667d0cb66eced7019db7941781ab1b84cfd267b3dab4684c71b059e074450ea76dc8e342744bffdd1ca1be6ccceb34b3580659
CGovernanceManager::IsValid() returns true only if its db is successfully
initialized. If we attempt to initialize it and fail, init logic will
report to us that it failed. If we don't attempt to initialize it at all,
it will remain false.
Since fDisableGovernance is the same as not initializing it at all and
the other case where IsValid() is false is dealt with in init, we can
use IsValid() to infer if governance is enabled.
CActiveMasternodeManager no longer exists as a global variable, it is a
conditionally initialized smart pointer. If it exists, then it's in masternode
mode, no need to check if we're in masternode mode anymore.
Using unique_ptr is a relic of activeMasternodeInfo, as it was accessible
independent of CActiveMasternodeManager. As it is now only accessible
if CActiveMasternodeManager is initialized, we can make it part of its
constructor and make them const.
Removes the assertion and sanity checks to see if key pair is valid.
External logic should not be able to mutate the CActiveMasternodeManager
state (i.e. CActiveMasternodeInfo). Access is brokered through getter
functions.
Decoupling initialization from loading the database means we need to
assert if the database is actually loaded before performing any operations
on it (i.e. check if the manager is "valid")
We're already checking if the block height is after the budget payment
start block and fast-failing if it isn't. There's no need to check again
a few lines later (consensus params are expected to be constant).
Reported by linter in CI build, https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/jobs/6281174570#L99
that's a result of:
contrib/devtools/copyright_header.py update ./
it is not scripted diff, because it works differentlly on my localhost and in CI:
CI doesn't want to use git commit date which is mocked to 30th Dec of 2023
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Avoid locking cs_main in high volume call locations; I'm not fully sure
the removal in signature_shares.cpp is okay; but it compiles.
## What was done?
Removed or reduced scope
## How Has This Been Tested?
Running with enable-debug
## Breaking Changes
Should be done
## 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
On my local kubuntu linters have way too much spam
## What was done?
See each commit
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run locally. Amount of warnings decreased from thousands to fewer
amount. Excluding typos, they are:
```
src/coinjoin/client.cpp:1420:5: warning: Consider using std::any_of algorithm instead of a raw loop. [useStlAlgorithm]
src/coinjoin/client.cpp:1426:5: warning: Consider using std::any_of algorithm instead of a raw loop. [useStlAlgorithm]
src/coinjoin/client.cpp:655:26: warning: Consider using std::copy_if algorithm instead of a raw loop. [useStlAlgorithm]
src/coinjoin/server.cpp:593:33: warning: Consider using std::any_of algorithm instead of a raw loop. [useStlAlgorithm]
src/coinjoin/server.cpp:630:106: warning: Consider using std::any_of algorithm instead of a raw loop. [useStlAlgorithm]
src/governance/governance.cpp:1057:9: warning: C-style pointer casting [cstyleCast]
src/governance/governance.cpp:1068:9: warning: C-style pointer casting [cstyleCast]
src/governance/governance.cpp:1079:13: warning: C-style pointer casting [cstyleCast]
src/governance/governance.cpp:1086:9: warning: C-style pointer casting [cstyleCast]
src/governance/governance.cpp:1094:9: warning: C-style pointer casting [cstyleCast]
src/governance/governance.cpp:1099:5: warning: C-style pointer casting [cstyleCast]
src/governance/governance.cpp:1486:34: warning: Consider using std::copy_if algorithm instead of a raw loop. [useStlAlgorithm]
src/llmq/commitment.cpp:102:5: warning: Consider using std::all_of or std::none_of algorithm instead of a raw loop. [useStlAlgorithm]
src/llmq/instantsend.cpp:820:38: warning: Consider using std::any_of algorithm instead of a raw loop. [useStlAlgorithm]
src/llmq/quorums.cpp:831:102: warning: Consider using std::any_of algorithm instead of a raw loop. [useStlAlgorithm]
src/llmq/quorums.h:300:17: warning: C-style pointer casting [cstyleCast]
src/llmq/quorums.h:301:17: warning: C-style pointer casting [cstyleCast]
src/llmq/quorums.h:302:17: warning: C-style pointer casting [cstyleCast]
src/llmq/quorums.h:303:17: warning: C-style pointer casting [cstyleCast]
src/spork.cpp:119:58: warning: Consider using std::any_of algorithm instead of a raw loop. [useStlAlgorithm]
src/statsd_client.cpp:234:63: warning: C-style pointer casting [cstyleCast]
Advice not applicable in this specific case? Add an exception by updating
IGNORED_WARNINGS in test/lint/lint-cppcheck-dash.sh
^---- failure generated from test/lint/lint-cppcheck-dash.sh
Consider install flake8-cached for cached flake8 results.
test/functional/data/invalid_txs.py: error: Source file found twice under different module names: "invalid_txs" and "data.invalid_txs"
test/functional/data/invalid_txs.py: note: See https://mypy.readthedocs.io/en/stable/running_mypy.html#mapping-file-paths-to-modules for more info
test/functional/data/invalid_txs.py: note: Common resolutions include: a) adding `__init__.py` somewhere, b) using `--explicit-package-bases` or adjusting MYPYPATH
Found 1 error in 1 file (errors prevented further checking)
^---- failure generated from test/lint/lint-python.s
```
## 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
ddefb5c0b759950942ac03f28c43b548af7b4033 p2p: Use the greatest common version in peer logic (Hennadii Stepanov)
e084d45562b94827b3a7873895882fcaae9f4d48 p2p: Remove SetCommonVersion() from VERACK handler (Hennadii Stepanov)
8d2026796a6f7add0c2cda9806e759817d1eae6f refactor: Rename local variable nSendVersion (Hennadii Stepanov)
e9a6d8b13b0558b17cdafbd32fd2663b4138ff11 p2p: Unify Send and Receive protocol versions (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
On master (6fef85bfa3cd7f76e83b8b57f9e4acd63eb664ec) `CNode` has two members to keep protocol version:
- `nRecvVersion` for received messages
- `nSendVersion` for messages to send
After exchanging with `VERSION` and `VERACK` messages via protocol version `INIT_PROTO_VERSION`, both nodes set `nRecvVersion` _and_ `nSendVersion` to _the same_ value which is the greatest common protocol version.
This PR:
- replaces two `CNode` members, `nRecvVersion` `nSendVersion`, with `m_greatest_common_version`
- removes duplicated getter and setter
There is no change in behavior on the P2P network.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
ACK ddefb5c0b759950942ac03f28c43b548af7b4033
naumenkogs:
ACK ddefb5c0b759950942ac03f28c43b548af7b4033
fjahr:
Code review ACK ddefb5c0b759950942ac03f28c43b548af7b4033
amitiuttarwar:
code review but untested ACK ddefb5c0b7
benthecarman:
utACK `ddefb5c`
Tree-SHA512: 5305538dbaa5426b923b0afd20bdef4f248d310855d1d78427210c00716c67b7cb691515c421716b6157913e453076e293b10ff5fd2cd26a8e5375d42da7809d
faca73000fa8975c28f6be8be01957c1ae94ea62 ci: Install fixed version of clang-format for linters (MarcoFalke)
fa4695da4c69646b58a8fa0b6b30146bb234deb8 build: Sort Makefile.am after renaming file (MarcoFalke)
cccc2784a3bb10fa8e43be7e68207cafb12bd915 scripted-diff: Move ui_interface to the node lib (MarcoFalke)
fa72ca6a9d90d66012765b0043fd819698b94ba8 qt: Remove unused includes (MarcoFalke)
fac96e6450d595fe67168cb7afa7692da6cc9973 wallet: Do not include server symbols (MarcoFalke)
fa0f6c58c1c6d10f04c4e65a424cc51ebca50a8c Revert "Fix link error with --enable-debug" (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
This reverts a hacky workaround from commit b83cc0f, which only happens to work due to compiler optimizations. Then, it actually fixes the linker error.
The underlying problem is that the wallet includes symbols from the server (ui_interface), which usually results in linker failures. Though, in this specific case the linker failures have not been observed (unless `-O0`) because our compilers were smart enough to strip unused symbols.
Fix the underlying problem by creating a new header-only with the needed symbol and move ui_interface to node to clarify that this is part of libbitcoin_server.
ACKs for top commit:
Sjors:
ACK faca730
laanwj:
ACK faca73000fa8975c28f6be8be01957c1ae94ea62
hebasto:
re-ACK faca73000fa8975c28f6be8be01957c1ae94ea62, since the [previous](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19331#pullrequestreview-434420539) review:
Tree-SHA512: e9731f249425aaea50b6db5fc7622e10078cf006721bb87989cac190a2ff224412f6f8a7dd83efd018835302337611f5839e29e15bef366047ed591cef58dfb4
01e283068b9e6214f2d77a2f772a4244ebfe2274 [net] Remove unnecessary default args on CNode constructor (Amiti Uttarwar)
bc5d65b3ca41eebb1738fdda4451d1466e77772e [refactor] Remove IsOutboundDisconnectionCandidate (Amiti Uttarwar)
2f2e13b6c2c8741ca9d825eaaef736ede484bc85 [net/refactor] Simplify multiple-connection checks (Amiti Uttarwar)
7f7b83deb2427599c129f4ff581d4d045461e459 [net/refactor] Rework ThreadOpenConnections logic (Amiti Uttarwar)
35839e963bf61d2da0d12f5b8cea74ac0e0fbd7b [net] Fix bug where AddrFetch connections would be counted as outbound full relay (Amiti Uttarwar)
4972c21b671ff73f13a1b5053338b6abbdb471b5 [net/refactor] Clarify logic for selecting connections in ThreadOpenConnections (Amiti Uttarwar)
60156f5fc40d56bb532278f16ce632c5a8b8035e [net/refactor] Remove fInbound flag from CNode (Amiti Uttarwar)
7b322df6296609570e368e5f326979279041c11f [net/refactor] Remove m_addr_fetch member var from CNode (Amiti Uttarwar)
14923422b08ac4b21b35c426bf0e1b9e7c97983b [net/refactor] Remove fFeeler flag from CNode (Amiti Uttarwar)
49efac5cae7333c6700d9b737d09fae0f3f4d7fa [net/refactor] Remove m_manual_connection flag from CNode (Amiti Uttarwar)
d3698b5ee309cf0f0cdfb286d6b30a256d7deae5 [net/refactor] Add connection type as a member var to CNode (Amiti Uttarwar)
46578c03e92a55925308363ccdad04dcfc820d96 [doc] Describe different connection types (Amiti Uttarwar)
442abae2bac7bff85886143df01e14215532b974 [net/refactor] Add AddrFetch connections to ConnectionType enum (Amiti Uttarwar)
af59feb05235ecb85ec9d75b09c66e71268c9889 [net/refactor] Extract m_addr_known logic from initializer list (Amiti Uttarwar)
e1bc29812ddf1d946bc5acca406a7ed2dca064a6 [net/refactor] Add block relay only connections to ConnectionType enum (Amiti Uttarwar)
0e52a659a2de915fc3dce37fc8fac39be1c8b6fa [net/refactor] Add feeler connections to ConnectionType enum (Amiti Uttarwar)
1521c47438537e192230486dffcec0228a53878d [net/refactor] Add manual connections to ConnectionType enum (Amiti Uttarwar)
26304b4100201754fb32440bec3e3b78cd3f0e6d [net/refactor] Introduce an enum to distinguish type of connection (Amiti Uttarwar)
3f1b7140e95d0f8f958cb35f31c3d964c57e484d scripted-diff: Rename OneShot to AddrFetch (Amiti Uttarwar)
Pull request description:
**This is part 1 of #19315, which enables the ability to test `outbound` and `block-relay-only` connections from the functional tests.** Please see that PR for more information of overall functionality.
**This PR simplifies how we manage different connection types.** It introduces an enum with the various types of connections so we can explicitly define the connection type. The existing system relies on a series of independent flags, then has asserts scattered around to ensure that conflicting flags are not enabled at the same time. I find this approach to be both brittle and confusing. While making these changes, I found a small bug due to the silent assumptions.
This PR also proposes a rename from `OneShot` to `AddrFetch`. I find the name `OneShot` to be very confusing, especially when we also have `onetry` manual connections. Everyone I've talked to offline has agreed that the name is confusing, so I propose a potential alternative. I think this is a good opportunity for a rename since I'm creating an enum to explicitly define the connection types.
(some context for the unfamiliar: `oneshot` or `addrfetch` connections are short-lived connections created on startup. They connect to the seed peers, send a `getaddr` to solicit addresses, then close the connection.)
Overview of this PR:
* rename `oneshot` to `addrfetch`
* introduce `ConnectionType` enum
* one by one, add different connection types to the enum
* expose the `conn_type` on CNode, and use this to reduce reliance on flags (& asserts)
* fix the bug in counting different type of connections
* some additional cleanup to simplify logic and make expectations explicit/inclusive rather than implicit/exclusive.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
utACK 01e283068b9e6214f2d77a2f772a4244ebfe2274
laanwj:
Code review ACK 01e283068b9e6214f2d77a2f772a4244ebfe2274, the commits are pretty straightforward to follow, and I think this is a move in the right direction overall
vasild:
ACK 01e283068
sdaftuar:
ACK 01e283068b9e6214f2d77a2f772a4244ebfe2274.
fanquake:
ACK 01e283068b9e6214f2d77a2f772a4244ebfe2274 - I don't have as much experience with the networking code but these changes look fairly straight forward, the new code seems more robust/understandable and the additional documentation is great. I'm glad that a followup branch is already underway. There might be some more review comments here later today, so keep an eye on the discussion, however I'm going to merge this now.
jb55:
wow this code was messy before... ACK 01e283068b9e6214f2d77a2f772a4244ebfe2274
Tree-SHA512: 7bb644a6ed5849913d777ebc2ff89133ca0fbef680355a9a344e07496a979e6f9ff21a958e8eea93dcd7d5c343682b0c7174b1a3de380a4247eaae73da436e15
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Should fix compilation errors like
```
masternode/meta.cpp:43:9: error: call to member function 'pushKV' is ambiguous
ret.pushKV("lastOutboundAttemptElapsed", now - lastOutboundAttempt);
^~
masternode/meta.cpp:45:9: error: call to member function 'pushKV' is ambiguous
ret.pushKV("lastOutboundSuccessElapsed", now - lastOutboundSuccess);
^~
```
on FreeBSD + clang-15
kudos to @MrDefacto for finding the issue and testing the fix
## What was done?
Specify `now` variable type explicitly instead of relying on `auto`
## How Has This Been Tested?
MrDefacto confirmed it compiles with no issues on FreeBSD now
## 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
1. we _should not_ skip masternode payments checks below
nSuperblockStartBlock or when governance is disabled
2. we _should_ skip superblock payee checks while we aren't synced yet
(should help recovering from missed triggers)
## What was done?
pls see individual commits.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, sync w/ and w/out `--disablegovernance`, reindexed on 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)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
1. inactive MNs (`activeMasternodeInfo.proTxHash.IsNull() == true`)
should simply drop duplicated connections like regular nodes do.
2. we should not instantly drop inbound (potentially probe) connections
(even if `DeterministicOutboundConnection` results would say so), should
let `CMasternodeUtils::DoMaintenance` do that. This way a probing peer
should have a chance to get our `mnauth` back and mark this attempt as a
success. This should hopefully reduce the number of random unexplained
pose-punishments.
3. probe nodes must be disconnected ignoring everything else, quorum
nodes and relay members connect using their own logic which should not
interfere with the way probe nodes work. (meaningful changes only:
9134d964a0)
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
as a side-effect `activeMasternodeInfoCs` lock is moved out of
`ForEachNode`
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, run a testnet mn
## 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
Dropped all changes made so far to be able to sync Testnet.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
Testnet syncing obviously
## 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 _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Implementation of accepted proposal:
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/expedite-60-20-20-reallocation
## What was done?
Activates changers brought in #5588 on `v20` hard fork instead of
`mn_rr`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests
## Breaking Changes
Again, Testnet sync is broken
## 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 _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`GetAdjustedTime()` can be manipulated by our peers, we should avoid
using it for our internal data structures/logic.
## What was done?
Use `GetTime<T>()` instead, fix some includes while at it.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, run a node
## 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
Calculation of `platformReward` should ignore fees and rely only on
Block subsidy.
cc @QuantumExplorer
## What was done?
From now on, the following formula is applied:
```
blockReward = blockSubsidy + feeReward
masternodeReward = masternodeShare(blockSubsidy)
platformReward = platformShare(masternodeReward)
masternodeReward += masternodeShare(feeReward)
```
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
`plaftormReward` differs in networks where `mn_rr` is already active
## 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
- [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>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
avoid potential discrepancies in block reward calculations
## What was done?
use integers (int64_t) only when dealing with block rewards, no
float/double
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests
## Breaking Changes
might fork off on devnets that use previous version
## 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)_
