## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Small dip0024 related cleanups, regtest only.
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
## 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)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
As discovered during platform testing by @shumkov , it seems as the
chain can halt in miner if somehow mempool would have several
transactions that are somehow invalid (maybe too low fee or something
else). They can't be mined, but miner can't prepare a valid block with
correct Credit Pool amount.
It is indeed can happen although I haven't reproduced it with functional
tests at the moment 🤷♂️
## What was done?
Refactored and simplified a logic of Credit Pool amount of validation
and added one more layer of validation: after all transaction are
actually added to block by miner, it is recalculated one more time.
Also used correct `pindexPrev` instead Tip() for EHF signals.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Before this changes platform failed with this error and chain halt:
```
2023-10-20T06:20:16Z (mocktime: 2023-10-20T06:28:29Z) ERROR: ConnectBlock(DASH): CheckCreditPoolDiffForBlock for block 9d635e1fd0d7a8a5bf16ce158d3a39cbf903864bb6d671769836ea7db6055230 failed with bad-cbtx-asse locked-amount
```
With changes from this PR platform is generate the asset-lock
transactions that are included to block and chain is not halt:
```
2023-10-27T10:45:37Z (mocktime: 2023-10-27T14:37:22Z) GetCreditPoolDiffForBlock: CCreditPool is CCreditPool(locked=32100015, currentLimit=32100015)
```
unit/functional tests are succeed.
## Breaking Changes
N/A; no consensus rules are changed
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
935acdcc79d1dc5ac04a83b92e5919ddbfa29329 refactor: modernize the implementation of uint256.* (pasta)
Pull request description:
- Constructors of uint256 to utilize Span instead of requiring a std::vector
- converts m_data into a std::array
- Prefers using `WIDTH` instead of `sizeof(m_data)`
- make all the things constexpr
- replace C style functions with c++ equivalents
- memset -> std::fill
This may also be replaced by std::memset, but I think that std::fill is more idiomatic of modern c++ and readable.
- memcpy -> std::copy
Note: In practice, implementations of std::copy avoid multiple assignments and use bulk copy functions such as std::memmove if the value type is TriviallyCopyable and the iterator types satisfy LegacyContiguousIterator. (https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/copy)
This could also likely be replaced by std::memcpy, but as said above, I believe the using std::copy is the more c++ way to do anything and is almost guaranteed to compile to the same asm
- memcmp -> std::memcmp
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 935acdcc79d1dc5ac04a83b92e5919ddbfa29329
hebasto:
Approach ACK 935acdcc79d1dc5ac04a83b92e5919ddbfa29329.
aureleoules:
reACK 935acdcc79d1dc5ac04a83b92e5919ddbfa29329
john-moffett:
ACK 935acdcc79d1dc5ac04a83b92e5919ddbfa29329
stickies-v:
Approach ACK 935acdcc7
Tree-SHA512: 4f1ba54ff2198eea0e505d41e73d552c84c60f6878d5c85a94a8ab57f39afc94ef8d79258e7afd01fa84ec2a99f4404bb877eecd671f65e1ee9273f3129fc650
04fee75bacb9ec3bceff1246ba6c8ed8a8759548 Use ReadLE64 in uint256::GetUint64() instead of duplicating logic (Pieter Wuille)
Pull request description:
No need to have a (naive) copy of the `ReadLE64` logic inside `uint256::GetUint64`, when we have an optimized function for exactly that.
ACKs for top commit:
davidgumberg:
ACK 04fee75bacb9ec3bceff1246ba6c8ed8a8759548
jonatack:
ACK 04fee75bacb9ec3bceff1246ba6c8ed8a8759548 review, this use of ReadLE64() is similar to the existing invocation by Num3072::Num3072(), sanity checked that before and after this change GetUint64() returns the same result (debug build, clang 13)
Tree-SHA512: 0fc2681536a18d82408411bcc6d5c6445fb96793fa43ff4021cd2933d46514c725318da35884f428d1799023921f33f8af091ef428ceb96a50866ac53a345356
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
This reverts #5636 and introduces 2 similar cmd-line/config params which
are made specifically for regtest. Turned out Platform guys actually
still need smth like that for local testing #5259.
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests but we don't really have(/need?) tests for this.
## 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)_
cc @shumkov
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
sb produced by sentinel:
>"DataString": ... \"payment_amounts\": \"20.00000000|20.00000000\", ...
>...
> "YesCount": 83,
sb produced by core:
>"DataString": ... \"payment_amounts\": \"20.00|20.00\", ...
> "YesCount": 13,
These 2 triggers are for the same block (900552), proposal hashes and
addresses are also the same but the difference in `payment_amounts`
format makes it look like a different trigger for core and this creates
a race.
## What was done?
Use `ValueFromAmount` instead of `FormatMoney` to avoid trimming
## 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)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
fix: possible assert call if nHeight in CDeterministicMNListDiff is
higher than Tip
Example of new log:
```
2023-09-28T17:35:50Z GetProjectedMNPayeesAtChainTip WARNING pindex is nullptr due to height=914160 chain height=914159
```
instead assert call:
```
...
#6 0x00007ffff7a33b86 in __assert_fail (assertion=0x55555783afd2 "pindex", file=0x5555577f2ed8 "llmq/utils.cpp", line=730,
function=0x5555577f2448 "bool llmq::utils::IsMNRewardReallocationActive(const CBlockIndex*)") at ./assert/assert.c:101
#7 0x0000555555ab7daf in llmq::utils::IsMNRewardReallocationActive (pindex=<optimized out>) at llmq/utils.cpp:730
#8 0x00005555559458ad in CDeterministicMNList::GetProjectedMNPayees (this=this@entry=0x7fffffffc690, pindex=0x0, nCount=<optimized out>, nCount@entry=2147483647)
at evo/deterministicmns.cpp:231
#9 0x000055555594614f in CDeterministicMNList::GetProjectedMNPayeesAtChainTip (this=this@entry=0x7fffffffc690, nCount=nCount@entry=2147483647) at evo/deterministicmns.cpp:216
#10 0x00005555558c9f51 in MasternodeList::updateDIP3List (this=this@entry=0x55555908cfd0) at qt/masternodelist.cpp:194
#11 0x00005555558ca9a0 in MasternodeList::updateDIP3ListScheduled (this=0x55555908cfd0) at qt/masternodelist.cpp:157
#12 0x000055555684a60f in void doActivate<false>(QObject*, int, void**) ()
#13 0x00005555568525b1 in QTimer::timerEvent(QTimerEvent*) ()
#14 0x0000555556844ce5 in QObject::event(QEvent*) ()
#15 0x0000555556ac3252 in QApplicationPrivate::notify_helper(QObject*, QEvent*) ()
#16 0x000055555681e6b8 in QCoreApplication::sendEvent(QObject*, QEvent*) ()
#17 0x000055555686de2a in QTimerInfoList::activateTimers() ()
#18 0x000055555686be84 in QEventDispatcherUNIX::processEvents(QFlags<QEventLoop::ProcessEventsFlag>) ()
#19 0x00005555569bf8a2 in QXcbUnixEventDispatcher::processEvents(QFlags<QEventLoop::ProcessEventsFlag>) ()
#20 0x000055555681caf6 in QEventLoop::exec(QFlags<QEventLoop::ProcessEventsFlag>) ()
#21 0x0000555556825f8a in QCoreApplication::exec() ()
...
```
## What was done?
ClientModel returns now a pair: MNList and CBlockIndex; so, we always
know the which one has been used even if current chain is switched.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run on my localhost from `c034ff0c2606142ba3e8894bc74f693b87374e5c` -
aborted with backtrace like above.
With both of commit - no assert more.
## 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: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`gobject count all`
before:
>Governance Objects: 1195 (Proposals: 9, Triggers: 1186, Other: 0;
Erased: 1), Votes: 135064
after (in 10-ish minutes after gov sync is done):
>Governance Objects: 11 (Proposals: 9, Triggers: 2, Other: 0; Erased:
1), Votes: 702
I _think_ it happens when a node can't follow the right chain for some
reason but it keeps receiving triggers and votes from other nodes which
means triggers never expire on such node. This wouldn't be a problem for
us if we wouldn't reorg testnet/devnets from time to time. Once we reorg
the stuck node happily spams us with all the triggers it saved in the
meantime.
## What was done?
2 sb cycles into the future should be enough for all legit triggers,
drop the ones that have their height even higher
## How Has This Been Tested?
run a node, check rpc
## 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
Bump version to rc.1
## What was done?
bump version
## 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
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
Should not be 2 forks in one version
## What was done?
- Asset Unlock transactions (withdrawals) should be available only in
MN_RR fork
- MN_RR should not be auto-activated on Main net without intentional
release of code (and not by spork), but they are need on test net to
test platform.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests
## Breaking Changes
Yes (see "what was done")
## 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
## 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
When expecting a hard fork, we manually calculate activation heights.
## What was done?
Returning expected activation height for BIP9 softporks in `locked_in`
status in `getblockchaininfo` RPC.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## 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
We went from milliseconds to microseconds for these silently in #5616🙈
## What was done?
make it milliseconds again
## 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 _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
fabea6d404571d046365f4f083da3569d2cbf4f7 net: Run clang-format on protocol.h (MarcoFalke)
facdeea2b25ef36e37b6ada58ea390a72d11a4b2 net: Remove un-actionable TODO (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
The first commit removes a TODO that is infeasible to solve. Currently, most (de)serializable classes in Bitcoin Core have public members. For example `CMessageHeader`, `FlatFilePos`, `CBlock`, `CTransaction`, `CCoin`, ...
So either this TODO comment should apply to all classes or to none. Fix that discrepancy by removing it from the source code for now. If deemed important, the TODO can be discussed in a brainstorming issue later.
Also run clang format on the header file in a new commit. Happy to drop this commit if it is too controversial, but I think it is trivial to review and makes the workflow of developers using clang-format-diff easier.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK fabea6d404571d046365f4f083da3569d2cbf4f7
naumenkogs:
ACK fabea6d. Not sure why that TODO was there in the first place, but Marco's justification seems correct.
hebasto:
ACK fabea6d404571d046365f4f083da3569d2cbf4f7, agree with both changes: removing TODO and applying the `clang-format-diff.py`.
Tree-SHA512: b79ae07be27e5a40fc9f411a5e9ae91aecb2fdedbcbf74699614a1004f4ef816bf396903ec6c06eb1395fd83a2047620c7583acbaadfb8c4e613319a63062c3c
4444dbf4d5047dd1c92973f7167a74a0779e61a3 gui: Remove un-actionable TODO (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
With encryption turned on by default for all wallets in consideration (#18889), I believe that wallet decryption will not be implemented ever or at least any time soon. So remove that TODO comment for now. If deemed important, a brainstorming issue can be opened instead.
Also remove some TODOs in the RPC console, which I don't understand. Maybe the gui was meant to show the debug log interactively? In any case, if deemed important, this should be filed as a brainstorming feature request, so that trade-offs of different solutions can be discussed.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Thanks. ACK 4444dbf4d5047dd1c92973f7167a74a0779e61a3
achow101:
ACK 4444dbf4d5047dd1c92973f7167a74a0779e61a3
Tree-SHA512: f7ddb37a14178f575da5409ea1c34e34bde37d79b2b56eaaf606a069e2b91c9d7b734529f5c68664b2fa5aa831117c8d19cce823743671cd6c31b81d68b8c70c
fa32cc0682a0aa3420e6a11031721fcb6c50fa44 doc: Remove fee delta TODO from txmempool.cpp (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
This refactor request was added in commit eb306664e7, though it didn't explain why the refactor is needed and what the goal is. Given that this wasn't touched for more than 5 years, it doesn't seem critical. Generally, non-trivial `TODO`s make more sense as GitHub issues, so that they can be discussed and triaged more easily.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK fa32cc0682a0aa3420e6a11031721fcb6c50fa44
Tree-SHA512: 6629fef543e815136c82c38aa8ba2c4de68a5fe94c6954f2559e468f7e59052e02dd7c221d3b159be0314eaf0dbb18f74814297c58f76e2289c47e8d4f49be4e
fac395e5eb2cd3210ba6345f777a586a9bec84e3 ci: Bump ci/lint/Dockerfile (MarcoFalke)
fa6eb6516727a8675dc6e46634d8343e282528ab test: Use python3.8 pow() (MarcoFalke)
88881cf7ac029aea660c2413ca8e2a5136fcd41b Bump python minimum version to 3.8 (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
There is no pressing reason to drop support for 3.7, however there are several maintenance issues:
* There is no supported operating system that ships 3.7 by default. (debian:buster is EOL and unmaintained to the extent that it doesn't run in the CI environment. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27340#issuecomment-1484988445)
* Compiling python 3.7 from source is also unsupported on at least macos, according to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24017#issuecomment-1107820790
* Recent versions of lief require 3.8, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27507#issuecomment-1517561645
Fix all maintenance issues by bumping the minimum.
ACKs for top commit:
RandyMcMillan:
ACK fac395e
fjahr:
ACK fac395e5eb2cd3210ba6345f777a586a9bec84e3
fanquake:
ACK fac395e5eb2cd3210ba6345f777a586a9bec84e3
Tree-SHA512: c198decdbbe29d186d73ea3f6549d8a38479383495d14a965a2f9211ce39637b43f13a4c2a5d3bf56e2d468be4bbe49b4ee8e8e19ec69936ff43ddf2b714c712
96299a9d6c0a6b9125a58a63ee3147e55d1b086b Test: Move common function assert_approx() into util.py (fridokus)
Pull request description:
To reduce code duplication, move `assert_approx` into common framework `util.py`.
`assert_approx()` is used in two functional tests.
ACKs for top commit:
theStack:
ACK 96299a9
practicalswift:
ACK 96299a9d6c0a6b9125a58a63ee3147e55d1b086b -- DRY is good and diff looks correct
fanquake:
ACK 96299a9d6c0a6b9125a58a63ee3147e55d1b086b - thanks for contributing 🍻
Tree-SHA512: 8e9d397222c49536c7b3d6d0756cc5af17113e5af8707ac48a500fff1811167fb2e03f3c0445b0b9e80f34935f4d57cfb935c4790f6f5463a32a67df5f736939
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`FlushStateToDisk` log is misleading
before
```
FlushStateToDisk: write coins cache to disk (8564 coins, 1199kB) started
FlushStateToDisk: write coins cache to disk (8564 coins, 1199kB) completed (13.98s)
```
after
```
FlushStateToDisk: write coins cache to disk (8564 coins, 1199kB) started
FlushStateToDisk: write coins cache to disk (8564 coins, 1199kB) completed (0.00s)
FlushStateToDisk: write evodb cache to disk started
FlushStateToDisk: write evodb cache to disk completed (13.98s)
```
## What was done?
Make a separate scope and log output for evodb related part. Most of the
changes here are whitespaces, ignoring them reveals the actual changes,
see https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5632/files?w=1.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run a node, check logs
## 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
We should be testing from the very first v19 block, not from some random
one 100 blocks after
## What was done?
Implement that, make sure we start at v19 activation.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`make check`
## 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
there is no reason for devnet-only params to exist on regtest
## What was done?
remove them
## 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)_
## 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
The bug was introduced in the original PR #5026 and refactored later
(which is good actually cause we shouldn't mix refactoring and
bug-fixing :) )
## What was done?
fix conditions, add tests
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_asset_locks.py`
## 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
fix: double lock of deterministicMNManager->cs
Logs:
```
node1 2023-10-21T16:46:03.990302Z (mocktime: 2014-12-04T17:33:19Z) [httpworker.1] DOUBLE LOCK DETECTED
node1 2023-10-21T16:46:03.990322Z (mocktime: 2014-12-04T17:33:19Z) [httpworker.1] Lock order:
node1 2023-10-21T16:46:03.990339Z (mocktime: 2014-12-04T17:33:19Z) [httpworker.1] 'cs_main' in miner.cpp:129 (in thread 'httpworker.1')
node1 2023-10-21T16:46:03.990353Z (mocktime: 2014-12-04T17:33:19Z) [httpworker.1] 'm_mempool.cs' in miner.cpp:129 (in thread 'httpworker.1')
node1 2023-10-21T16:46:03.990366Z (mocktime: 2014-12-04T17:33:19Z) [httpworker.1] (*) 'deterministicMNManager->cs' in evo/cbtx.cpp:114 (in thread 'httpworker.1')
node1 2023-10-21T16:46:03.990439Z (mocktime: 2014-12-04T17:33:19Z) [httpworker.1] (*) 'cs' in ./evo/deterministicmns.h:614 (in thread 'httpworker.1')
node1 2023-10-21T16:46:04.003619Z (mocktime: 2014-12-04T17:33:19Z) [httpworker.1] Posix Signal: Aborted
No debug information available for stacktrace. You should add debug information and then run:
dashd -printcrashinfo=bvcgc43iinzgc43ijfxgm3ybaacwiyltnbsbkudponuxqictnftw4ylmhiqecytpoj2gkzaphcbzaaaaaaaaayeurhimekiaaav6ldwqyiuqaafwsoe5bqrjaaahz6eh2dbcsaaakhhzaaaaaaaaanreseaaaaaaacgguliaaaaaaadyauwqaaaaaaacp3daaaaaaaaamxigcaaaaaaablpulyaaaaaaadovy3yaaaaaaahj7vbaaaaaaaadnbsdaaaaaaaaaa======
```
Part of backtrace:
```
#9 UniqueLock<AnnotatedMixin<std::mutex>, std::unique_lock<std::mutex> >::UniqueLock (fTry=false, nLine=615, pszFile=0x55a9f71a3710 "./evo/deterministicmns.h",
pszName=0x55a9f719caff "cs", mutexIn=..., this=0x7f7e1e71b250) at ./sync.h:164
#10 CDeterministicMNManager::GetListForBlock (this=0x55a9f84d06b0, pindex=0x7f7db03621c0) at ./evo/deterministicmns.h:615
#11 0x000055a9f6612258 in llmq::utils::ComputeQuorumMembersByQuarterRotation (pCycleQuorumBaseBlockIndex=0x7f7db03a6930, llmqParams=...) at /usr/include/c++/12/bits/unique_ptr.h:191
#12 llmq::utils::GetAllQuorumMembers (llmqType=<optimized out>, pQuorumBaseBlockIndex=0x7f7db0359bc0, reset_cache=reset_cache@entry=false) at llmq/utils.cpp:150
#13 0x000055a9f694d957 in CDeterministicMNManager::HandleQuorumCommitment (qc=..., pQuorumBaseBlockIndex=<optimized out>, mnList=..., debugLogs=debugLogs@entry=false)
at evo/deterministicmns.cpp:989
#14 0x000055a9f695c455 in CDeterministicMNManager::BuildNewListFromBlock (this=<optimized out>, block=..., pindexPrev=pindexPrev@entry=0x7f7db03c1ac0, state=..., view=...,
mnListRet=..., debugLogs=false) at evo/deterministicmns.cpp:918
#15 0x000055a9f692e7cd in CalcCbTxMerkleRootMNList (block=..., pindexPrev=pindexPrev@entry=0x7f7db03c1ac0, merkleRootRet=..., state=..., view=...)
at /usr/include/c++/12/bits/unique_ptr.h:191
#16 0x000055a9f6a352ed in BlockAssembler::CreateNewBlock (this=this@entry=0x7f7e1e71f0b0, scriptPubKeyIn=...) at ./validation.h:649
#17 0x000055a9f6771c49 in generateBlocks (chainman=..., mempool=..., evodb=..., llmq_ctx=..., coinbase_script=..., nGenerate=10, nMaxTries=<optimized out>) at rpc/mining.cpp:167
#18 0x000055a9f677a496 in generatetoaddress (request=...) at /usr/include/c++/12/bits/unique_ptr.h:191
#19 0x000055a9f671ea02 in CRPCCommand::CRPCCommand(char const*, char const*, UniValue (*)(JSONRPCRequest const&), std::initializer_list<char const*>)::{lambda(JSONRPCRequest const&, UniValue&, bool)#1}::operator()(JSONRPCRequest const&, UniValue&, bool) const (__closure=<optimized out>, result=..., request=...) at ./rpc/server.h:120
```
## What was done?
`CDeterministicMNManager::BuildNewListFromBlock` doesn't require `cs`
lock anymore
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional 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
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Current implementation relies either on asserts or sometimes checks then
returning a special value; In the case of asserts (or no assert where we
use the value without checks) it'd be better to make it explicit to
function caller that the ptr must be not_null; otherwise gsl::not_null
will call terminate.
See
https://github.com/microsoft/GSL/blob/main/docs/headers.md#user-content-H-pointers-not_null
and
https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines#Rf-nullptr
I'm interested in a conceptual review; specifically on if this is
beneficial over just converting these ptrs to be a reference?
## What was done?
*Partial* implementation on using gsl::not_null in dash code
## 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)_
---------
Signed-off-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
To make configuring devnets more error-prune and config file shorter
## What was done?
Updated default LLMQ parameters on devnet from 50_60, 60_75, 100_67 to
`LLMQ_DEVNET` and `LLMQ_DEVNET_PLATFORM`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
not tested yet; would be tested on devnets later with next
devnet/release
## Breaking Changes
n/a for non-dev-nets; for dev-net other default quorum is used.
## 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>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
By default consensus for devnet if 50_60 that is way too much:
```
consensus.llmqTypeMnhf = Consensus::LLMQType::LLMQ_50_60;
```
So, `quorum list` on devnet-ouzo is empty:
```
{
"llmq_50_60": [
],
```
## What was done?
Adds new -llmqmnhf param for devnet to change quorum params dynamically.
## How Has This Been Tested?
<not tested>
## 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
#5597 follow-up
## What was done?
add missing filed description
## How Has This Been Tested?
`help getblockchaininfo`
## 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
- Using `actions/cache` with a local buildx cache without the "move
cache" workaround will result in constant growth in cache size:
https://docs.docker.com/build/ci/github-actions/cache/#local-cache
## What was done?
- Docker natively supports the GHA Cache API, so we should use it for
faster and more efficient cache usage
- Actions were also bumped to current stable versions
## How Has This Been Tested?
Devs please test this by running a test Guix build from workflow
dispatch
## 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
- [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)_
(over a 13 minute segment of reindex) boost time took about 9+9+9 =
27%!! of total cycles!!!
During the same time segment, GetTimeMicros() used roughly 0.2% of total
cycles! (even though it's used a lot more)
Over my entire roughly 40 minute profiling session, boost time appears
to use about 6% of cycles; still too much, while GetTimeMicros used
about 0.4%
## 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)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Now that v19 is buried we can enforce basic bls scheme usage in
governance and coinjoin and drop some extra code we used for backwards
compatibility.
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, sync and mix 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
It makes more sense for DecreaseScores to be inside of the MNList itself
imo
## What was done?
Refactored as such
## How Has This Been Tested?
Reindexed
I had originally expected some performance improvements due to the
removal of `GetMN` but in my benchmarking I didn't see any noticeable
perf changes. I do still think the removal of `GetMN` and using a
shared_ptr the whole time is better as it removes the chance of the
master node disappearing from the list (which would have previously
thrown, but is now impossible).
## 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)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Implementation EHF mechanism, part 4. Previous changes are:
- https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/4577
- https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5505
- https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5469
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently MN_RR is activated automatically by soft-fork activation after
v20 is activated.
It is not flexible enough, because platform may not be released by that
time yet or in opposite it can be too long to wait.
Also, any signal of EHF requires manual actions from MN owners to sign
EHF signal - it is automated here.
## What was done?
New spork `SPORK_24_MN_RR_READY`; new EHF manager that sign EHF signals
semi-automatically without manual actions; and send transaction with EHF
signal when signal is signed to network.
Updated rpc `getblockchaininfo` to return information about of EHF
activated forks.
Fixed function `IsTxSafeForMining` in chainlock's handler to skip
transactions without inputs (empty `vin`).
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests. Some tests have been updated due to new way
of MN_RR activation: `feature_asset_locks.py`, `feature_mnehf.py`,
`feature_llmq_evo.py` and unit test `block_reward_reallocation_tests`.
## Breaking Changes
New way of MN_RR activation.
## 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>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
## 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
Currently, the `nSubsidyBase` calculation relies on difficulty. This
leads to variable Block Subsidity.
When Platform will be live, it would constantly require blocks
difficulty in order to calculate the `platformReward` (which relies on
Block Subsidy)
cc @QuantumExplorer
## What was done?
Starting from v20 activation, `nSubsidyBase` will no longer rely on
difficulty and will be constant to 5.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
Block rewards will differ.
## 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)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Signature for withdrawal (asset unlock) transaction should be validated
against platform quorum (100_67) but not same as currently against EHF
quorum (400_85).
## What was done?
Updates type of quorum in chainparams for Asset Unlock (withdrawal)
transactions to same as platform's quorum.
It is first part of changes to fix devnet, testnet and mainnet. For
regnet is still used incorrect quorum due to non-trivial changes in
functional test `feature_assetlocks.py`; these changes would be provided
in next PR.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional test.
## Breaking Changes
Yes, quorum for validation of Asset Unlock (withdrawal) transaction is
changed.
## 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
this change saw a ~38% performance improvement in header sync reindex
reproduce via `time ./src/qt/dash-qt --nowallet --testnet --reindex
--stopatheight=5`
On Develop this took average of 1:48 to finish, on this branch it took
1:07
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Slow header / block validation
## What was done?
Pass around cached block hash
## How Has This Been Tested?
Reindexed testnet
## 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)_
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
