fae1e992898aa6b36c402cec4085fbf6da9b33ad ci: Only clone bitcoin-core/qa-assets when fuzzing (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Currently the only content of that repo are some seeds, so we can speed up some ci builds
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK fae1e992898aa6b36c402cec4085fbf6da9b33ad (provided this passes travis)
Tree-SHA512: ed813738e7f24bb56a2f12aa3b398e414eb4f0ba98379836a33ff3e5602cbf42a28e89aad10e346468191ecddc03e60d5b236097112e27c07cb1c2293533ea58
fa082d0a57afedca9122fac4aecd6a3070f06b04 travis: Remove valgrind (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
When the valgrind run was added, it took 2 hours. Travis kindly raised the timeout limit to the maximum possible of 3 hours.
Today, a full build of Bitcoin Core with all tests takes more than three hours. Thus, it is impossible to run all tests on travis.
Moreover, the feedback loop for developers that create a pull request takes at least 2 hours, but in some cases (when the travis queue is full) until the next day. This is unacceptable.
Fix both issues by removing the build from travis.
Please note that the `ci/test/` configurations are *not* removed. They will stay in the repo and can be executed anywhere (just not on travis).
ACKs for top commit:
jamesob:
ACK fa082d0a57
jnewbery:
utACK fa082d0a57afedca9122fac4aecd6a3070f06b04
Tree-SHA512: 9acaa0e2d3926014fadb7dd2e86c4e01df382e9399f6ae99f989fa609da66a77bdd1b75d6ff42d2686f38f730b8564e6dc722aa597a473290c9d30c2abe7ef0f
fab7d954b261d74b369fe2a3c1785540c4f056b4 test: Make valgrind.supp work on aarch64 (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Was easy to fix by simply removing a line
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK fab7d954b261d74b369fe2a3c1785540c4f056b4 -- diff looks correct
Tree-SHA512: d2d7c6cac453a3177c20e256ec50a03066f8dbf5ae45299077ccf4a2b45a3a40252b1b5fcaf9224a59bb5c3df5bd90ac58af27eb0f47dc87c2640df5b2b460ca
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
