## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Move `BuildSimplifiedDiff` to the place it's actually used. This also
resolves 3 circular dependencies we have atm.
## What was done?
mostly trivial move-only changes
## How Has This Been Tested?
it compiles and linter is happy 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 _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Implementation of Randomness Beacon Part 2.
This PR is the next step of #5262.
Starting from v20 activation fork, members for quorums are sorted using
(if available) the best CL signature found in Coinbase.
If no CL signature is present yet, then the usual way is used (By using
Blockhash instead)
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
Test `feature_llmq_rotation.py` was updated to cover both rotated and
non-rotated quorums.
2 quorums are mined first to ensure Chainlock are working earlier.
Then dip_24 activation is replaced by v20 activation.
The only direct way to test this change is to make sure that all
expected quorums after v20 activation are properly formed.
Note: A `wait_for_chainlocked_block_all_nodes` is called between every
rotation cycle to ensure that Coinbase will use a different Chainlock
signature.
## Breaking Changes
Yes, quorum members will be calculated differently.
## 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)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
We had forgotten to harden dip20 and dip24 activation
## What was done?
Hardened dip20 and dip24 activation
## How Has This Been Tested?
Hasn't yet; should do an assumevalid=0 reindex
## Breaking Changes
Hopefully 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
- [ ] 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: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Automated guix builds in CI when specifically requested
## What was done?
Any PR with the `build-guix` label added will automatically have the
Guix build ran and the hashes placed in the CI output to compare against
## How Has This Been Tested?
This PR
## 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
`cs_map_quorums` was introduced to protect `mapQuorumsCache` only. We
shouldn't hold it for too long or require it to be held in
`BuildQuorumFromCommitment`.
## What was done?
limit the scope of `cs_map_quorums`
## How Has This Been Tested?
build and run tests locally and in gitlab ci
## 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
Install of dash_hash will change once
https://github.com/dashpay/dash_hash/pull/17/ is merged
## What was done?
- Changed install instructions to match new install in dash_hash README
- Updated Dockerfile to install correctly
## How Has This Been Tested?
N/A
## 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
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
should fix ci failures like
https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/jobs/4261565118 in #5291
## What was done?
Use the exact dash_hash version/tag instead of simply using `master`.
Bumping `DASH_HASH_VERSION` invalidates docker cache.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Ran it in my gitlab ci
## 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
I think the logic in activate_by_name is broken
## What was done?
fix it
## 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
pls see individual commits
fixes an issue (reported by @strophy recently) where mixing wouldn't
start in a fresh new wallet
not 100% sure but
[99867eb](99867eb769)
might also fix#5350 reported by @splawik21 so this could also be a v19
backport candidate
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
mixing on testnet
## Breaking Changes
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`feature_pruning.py` is failing atm
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
run `feature_pruning.py` locally
gitian for this branch with `INTEGRATION_TESTS_ARGS` set to `--extended
--exclude feature_dbcrash --timeoutscale=4 --jobs=4`:
https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/pipelines/852044104
NOTE:
[`linux64_tsan-test`](https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/jobs/4197383660)
failed because tsan build binaries are super slow and we hit 30 minutes
timeout for 1 single test because of that. This is not an actual test
failure.
## 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
## What was done?
- Bumped version of `CbTx`. Added fields `bestCLHeightDiff`,
`bestCLSignature`
- Miner starting from v20 fork, includes best CL signature in `CbTx` (if
available) or null signature.
- All nodes should verify included CL signature before accepting the
block.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Basically, activated v20 on in the beginning of
`feature_llmq_chainlocks.py`
## Breaking Changes
Yes, new version of CbTx
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [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
gobject sync is broken after #5322
## What was done?
implement proper serialization
## How Has This Been Tested?
run dash-qt/dashd on testnet/mainnet
## Breaking Changes
n/a, fixes breaking changes introduced earlier
## 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
Functional tests in CI and locally often fails without a good reason
(pretty randomly)
## What was done?
It was re-implemented `get_recovered_sig` and updated `create_raw_tx`
for better selection/change output.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run functional times with bug amount of parrallel jobs:
```
test/functional/test_runner.py -j 20 feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py
```
Without these changes usually 2-3 instance fails.
With these changes all failures happened only for `p2p_addrv2_relay.py`
and `mempool_unbroadcast.py`. Beside feature_llmq_is_conflicts.py
improved stability of `interface_zmq_dash.py` also.
## Breaking Changes
No 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
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Invalid number of minimum members in comments for LLMQ_25_67
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Invalid number of minimum members in comments for LLMQ_25_67
## What was done?
- Replaced `67` with `17`
## How Has This Been Tested?
None
## Breaking Changes
None
## 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
we failed to backport 13216 correctly in #4359
noticed this while reviewing/testing #5255
## What was done?
fix it
## How Has This Been Tested?
run qt with `-resetguisetting` and check info with and without the patch
on testnet for example (or tweak regtest params and test there)
## 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)_
e78aaf41f43d0e2ad78fa6d8dad61032c8ef73d0 [docs] Add release notes for burying bip 9 soft fork deployments (John Newbery)
8319e738f9f118025b332e4fa804d4c31e4113f4 [tests] Add coverage for the content of getblockchaininfo.softforks (James O'Beirne)
0328dcdcfcb56dc8918697716d7686be048ad0b3 [Consensus] Bury segwit deployment (John Newbery)
1c93b9b31c2ab7358f9d55f52dd46340397c906d [Consensus] Bury CSV deployment height (John Newbery)
3862e473f0cb71a762c0306b171b591341d58142 [rpc] Tidy up reporting of buried and ongoing softforks (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
This hardcodes CSV and segwit activation heights, similar to the BIP 90 buried deployments for BIPs 34, 65 and 66.
CSV and segwit have been active for over 18 months. Hardcoding the activation height is a code simplification, makes it easier to understand segwit activation status, and reduces technical debt.
This was originally attempted by jl2012 in #11398 and again by me in #12360.
ACKs for top commit:
ajtowns:
ACK e78aaf41f43d0e2ad78fa6d8dad61032c8ef73d0 ; checked diff to previous acked commit, checked tests still work
ariard:
ACK e78aaf4, check diff, run the tests again and successfully activated csv/segwit heights on mainnet as expected.
MarcoFalke:
ACK e78aaf41f43d0e2ad78fa6d8dad61032c8ef73d0 (still didn't check if the mainnet block heights are correct, but the code looks good now)
Tree-SHA512: 7e951829106e21a81725f7d3e236eddbb59349189740907bb47e33f5dbf95c43753ac1231f47ae7bee85c8c81b2146afcdfdc11deb1503947f23093a9c399912
fa3c6575cac5e3841797980fe60b8368ae579dba lint: Add false positive to python dead code linter (MarcoFalke)
fa25668e1c8982548f1c6f94780709c625811469 test: Test p2sh-witness and bech32 in wallet_import_rescan (MarcoFalke)
fa79af298917d501cee26370fdf9d44d05133d15 test: Replace fragile "rng" with call to random() (MarcoFalke)
fac3dcf7d052586548f2100a0d576618a85741f9 test: Generate one block for each send in wallet_import_rescan (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
This adds test coverage for segwit in the `wallet_import_rescan` test, among other cleanups.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
ACK fa3c6575cac5e3841797980fe60b8368ae579dba
Tree-SHA512: 877741763c62c1bf9d868864a1e3f0699857e8c028e9fcd65c7eeb73600c22cbe97b7b51093737743d9e87bcb991c1fe1086f673e18765aef0fcfe27951402f0
9c23ebd6b18fb1058a8d3e8aae9e0595d3a57ad5 qa: Fix service flag comparison check in rpc_net test (Luke Dashjr)
Pull request description:
Rebase of #16936
ACKs for top commit:
darosior:
ACK 9c23ebd6b18fb1058a8d3e8aae9e0595d3a57ad5
Tree-SHA512: 74f287740403da1040ab1e235ef6eba4e304f3ee5d57a3b25d1e2e1f2f982d256528d398a4d6cb24ba393798e680a8f46cd7dae54ed84ab2c747e96288f1f884
faa079db92e614bddfe8bd323ddcd2adb77e0961 travis: Disable feature_block in tsan run (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
The `feature_block` test causes the travis machine to OOM, when run with the thread sanitizer.
The stderr says:
```
==27237==ERROR: ThreadSanitizer failed to allocate 0xf6000 (1007616) bytes of LargeMmapAllocator (error code: 12)
...
FATAL: ThreadSanitizer CHECK failed: /build/llvm-toolchain-3.8-_PD09B/llvm-toolchain-3.8-3.8/projects/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_common.cc:183 "((0 && "unable to mmap")) != (0)" (0x0, 0x0)
ERROR: Failed to mmap
```
(from https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bitcoin/jobs/588194563#L10505)
Fix this by disabling `feature_block` on travis. Longer term, I'd like to move away from travis, but I'll leave this for a follow-up.
ACKs for top commit:
fanquake:
ACK faa079db92e614bddfe8bd323ddcd2adb77e0961
Tree-SHA512: c0dc2272853aac53f68eb9e110c8500c4a92211ba89d856660bacdf6e959d875477e422b3280b743d85fc8a65e083bf9153911f12039d026e2501f426540dac4
ea9fcfd1305f92a7c3ca4d3c05951ceba1b6b05b doc: Drop protobuf stuff (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
This is a follow-up to #17165.
ACKs for top commit:
fanquake:
ACK ea9fcfd1305f92a7c3ca4d3c05951ceba1b6b05b - clicked the links and they seem to work.
Tree-SHA512: 0861bbac3a3ff781a413e15f5ed02c624bc15d572a001a53cd2fb9f7683456175f69e9d666b72f260abbb5114b67cefca9fada4d179c62384c90479534ae63d5
BIP70 is removed in "merge #17165: Remove BIP70 support (#4023)".
So, this commit contains only some follow-ups to unify codebase
e09913f1c47e693b0c6fafef55b9ca78e5f3abc0 doc: specify protobuf as optional in build docs (fanquake)
376f4929f8f75011b72b2f9c3164980db482278a build: disable BIP70 support by default (fanquake)
Pull request description:
Disable BIP70 support in the GUI by default for `0.19.0` (for eventual removal in `0.20.0`?).
Users who want to compile with BIP70 support enabled can pass `--enable-bip70` to `./configure`.
I've inverted the current `--disable-bip70` test to instead pass `--enable-bip70`.
Tested configurations on `macOS` (`protobuf` installed with `brew`).
Protobuf available and `./configure`:
```
Options used to compile and link:
with wallet = yes
with gui / qt = yes
with bip70 = no
```
Protobuf available and `./configure --enable-bip70`:
```
Options used to compile and link:
with wallet = yes
with gui / qt = yes
with bip70 = yes
```
Protobuf not available (i.e `brew unlink protobuf`) and `./configure`:
```
Options used to compile and link:
with wallet = yes
with gui / qt = yes
with bip70 = no
```
Protobuf not available and `./configure --enable-bip70`:
```
checking whether to build test_bitcoin-qt... yes
checking whether to build BIP70 support... configure: error: protobuf missing
```
TODO:
- [x] Remove `protobuf` from other Travis builds
- [ ] Documentation updates (mention that `protobuf` is now optional)?
- [ ] Could split release notes into GUI and build
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK e09913f1c47e693b0c6fafef55b9ca78e5f3abc0
elichai:
ACK e09913f1c47e693b0c6fafef55b9ca78e5f3abc0 Read the autotools changes. awesome that this removes the protobuf requirement.
practicalswift:
ACK e09913f1c47e693b0c6fafef55b9ca78e5f3abc0 -- diff looks correct
Tree-SHA512: 7bf87ae8555e24db2da2e89cc4d4e90d09be27499ad386ad65879d05df8f96d9a1384379891ac8963d17728c90e55961560813df97e849e631e2de8c08e210c8
