fa8abdc9953e381715493b259908e246914793b0 rpc: Use FeeModes doc helper in estimatesmartfee (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Not sure why this doesn't use the doc helper, probably an oversight?
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK fa8abdc9953e381715493b259908e246914793b0
Tree-SHA512: 1f2dc8356e3476ddcf9cafafa7f9865ad95bed1e3067c0edab8e3c483e374bdbdbecc066167554b4a1b479e28f6a52c4ae6a75a70c67ee4e1ff4f3ba36b04001
6690adba08006739da0060eb4937126bdfa1181a Warn when binaries are built from a dirty branch. (Tyler Chambers)
Pull request description:
- Adjusted `--version` flag behavior in bitcoind and bitcoin-wallet to have the same behavior.
- Added `--version` flag to bitcoin-tx to match.
- Added functionality in gen-manpages.sh to error when attempting to generate man pages for binaries built from a dirty branch.
mitigates problem with issue #20412
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Tested ACK 6690adba08006739da0060eb4937126bdfa1181a
Tree-SHA512: b5ca509f1a57f66808c2bebc4b710ca00c6fec7b5ebd7eef58018e28e716f5f2358e36551b8a4df571bf3204baed565a297aeefb93990e7a99add502b97ee1b8
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Issues with rebasing non-conflicting pull requests on top of the updated
target branch:
1. It's ~impossible~ _annoying_ to run `gfd` _on each rebase_ to verify
that it was indeed a clean rebase ~if you did not pull the
original/previous version~ (it is possible actually, must use full
commit hash)
2. Github GUI is pretty much useless if a target branch update was huge
Because of (1) and (2) if a rebase was done in the middle of your review
you have to basically start your review from scratch which is super
annoying and should be avoided. Rebasing a conflicting PR or rebasing on
top of the same `HEAD` as before is ok.
cc @kittywhiskers @vijaydasmp @knst
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
40% smaller CI job artifacts. Should help with issues like
https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/jobs/4759700026 in #5493.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
https://gitlab.com/UdjinM6/dash/-/jobs/4773517599
## 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
Used to avoid the following error:
```
In file included from test/fuzz/addition_overflow.cpp:7:
In file included from ./test/fuzz/util.h:26:
In file included from ./test/util/setup_common.h:16:
In file included from ./txmempool.h:31:
In file included from /builds/dashpay/dash/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/include/boost/optional.hpp:15:
In file included from /builds/dashpay/dash/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/include/boost/optional/optional.hpp:47:
In file included from /builds/dashpay/dash/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/include/boost/type_traits/is_nothrow_move_assignable.hpp:16:
/builds/dashpay/dash/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/include/boost/type_traits/has_nothrow_assign.hpp:65:7: error: builtin __has_nothrow_assign is deprecated; use __is_nothrow_assignable instead [-Werror,-Wdeprecated-builtins]
BOOST_HAS_NOTHROW_ASSIGN(T)
^
/builds/dashpay/dash/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/include/boost/type_traits/intrinsics.hpp:205:43: note: expanded from macro 'BOOST_HAS_NOTHROW_ASSIGN'
^
/builds/dashpay/dash/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/include/boost/serialization/serialization.hpp:61:1: note: in instantiation of template class 'boost::has_nothrow_assign<unsigned int>' requested here
BOOST_STRONG_TYPEDEF(unsigned int, version_type)
^
/builds/dashpay/dash/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/include/boost/serialization/strong_typedef.hpp:42:57: note: expanded from macro 'BOOST_STRONG_TYPEDEF'
D& operator=(const D& rhs) BOOST_NOEXCEPT_IF(boost::has_nothrow_assign<T>::value) {t = rhs.t; return *this;} \
```
clang warnings are quite noisy and easily cause gitlab's logs
to spill over, preventing logging of dash-specific warnings and errors
from making it to the CI logs.
our dependencies mostly track upstream so regardless, we cannot
act upon those warnings, so it's better to just suppress them if they're
too noisy.
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Since v19, Evo nodes are paid 4x blocks in a row.
This needs to be reverted when MN Reward Reallocation activates.
## What was done?
Starting from MN Reward Reallocation activation, Evo nodes are paid one
block in a row (like regular masternodes).
In addition, `nConsecutivePayments` isn't incremented anymore for Evo
nodes.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_llmq_hpmn.py` with MN Reward Reallocation activation.
## Breaking Changes
no
## 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
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: Konstantin Akimov <knstqq@gmail.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
It partially resolves issue https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/5471
Better unit tests are needed to validate changes in ProTx implementation
such as this PR: https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5463
## What was done?
- Invalid ProTx transactions are checked more strictly. The flag "tx is
failed" is not enough now for test to succeed, but error code should
matched with expected error.
- Duplicated implementations of tests for "valid" and "invalid
transaction" are changed to more general code.
- Added extra log output with tx ID for easier debug - to see which
exactly tx is failed in test
- Supported more by 256 txes in one json file
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit 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
- [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
LLMQContext uses RAII to initialize all members. Ensured that all
members always initialized correctly in proper order if LLMQContext
exists.
BlockAssembler, CChainState use too many agruments and they are making
wrong assumption that members of LLMQContext can be constructed and used
independently, but that's not true. Instead, let's pass LLMQContext
whenever possible.
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
https://github.com/dashpay/dash-issues/issues/52
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional test and introduce no breaking changes.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
- We want to enable use of the AWS-hosted GitHub Actions runners, now
that [corresponding
infra](https://github.com/dcginfra/tf-aws-gh-runner/pull/8/files#diff-ad98d33884a302f6c747dc6b326c6b3af3887f2ec25e0bd7a0395f10444818f3)
exists to deploy these runners
## What was done?
Add new labels and workflow dispatch button to allow runner testing
## How Has This Been Tested?
Pending testing in CI
## 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
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
We have plenty of block space. Having `fallbackfee` disabled by default
is needlessly annoying.
## What was done?
Bump `DEFAULT_FALLBACK_FEE` to `1000`, same as it is on `master`
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/wallet/wallet.h#L68
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, send txes on testnet
## 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
RPC help for mempoolentry incorrectly called the "instantsend" field
"time". The "instantsend" and "unbroadcast" fields were also in a
different order than the actual response.
## What was done?
Changed "time" -> "instantsend" and flipped order of
"instantsend"/"unbroadcast"
## How Has This Been Tested?
Built and checked locally
## Breaking Changes
N/A
## 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)_
624bab00dd2cc8e2ebd77dc0a669bc8d507c3721 test: add coverage for getwalletinfo format field (Jon Atack)
5e737a009234cbd7cf53748d3d28a2da5221192f rpc, wallet: Expose database format in getwalletinfo (João Barbosa)
Pull request description:
Support for sqlite based wallets was added in #19077. This PR adds the `format` key in `getwalletinfo` response, that can be `bdb` or `sqlite`.
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
Tested ACK 624bab00dd2cc8e2ebd77dc0a669bc8d507c3721
laanwj:
Code review ACK 624bab00dd2cc8e2ebd77dc0a669bc8d507c3721.
MarcoFalke:
doesn't hurt ACK 624bab00dd2cc8e2ebd77dc0a669bc8d507c3721
hebasto:
ACK 624bab00dd2cc8e2ebd77dc0a669bc8d507c3721, tested on Linux Mint 20 (x86_64).
meshcollider:
utACK 624bab00dd2cc8e2ebd77dc0a669bc8d507c3721
Tree-SHA512: a81f8530f040f6381d33e073a65f281993eccfa717424ab6e651c1203cbaf27794dcb7175570459e7fdaa211565bc060d0a3ecbe70d2b6f9c49b8d5071e4441c
9b74461fa293453a9eb0b1717b30b3f7fa778d91 refactor: Assert before dereference in CWallet::GetDatabase (João Barbosa)
021feb3187b207d511561c1f0ffd7f9e5e0c9c1d refactor: Drop redudant CWallet::GetDBHandle (João Barbosa)
Pull request description:
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
Code Review ACK 9b74461fa293453a9eb0b1717b30b3f7fa778d91
meshcollider:
utACK 9b74461fa293453a9eb0b1717b30b3f7fa778d91
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 9b74461fa293453a9eb0b1717b30b3f7fa778d91. Changes since last review: rebasing due to conflict, dropping wallet path commit c6a5cd7a64c78b162f545a3467d0fea7dcaadfcc as suggested in discussion, making GetDatabase() const in the earlier commit. Giving more descriptive title like
Tree-SHA512: 68cf3b5e9fe0acb3a5cd081086629989f213f1904cc344e5775767b56759a7d905b1e1c303afbe40f172ff81bf07f3719b59d8f6ec2de3fdd53cd0e2d220fb25
17a5f172fa9ec509b1c3f950ee8dfb6f025534d2 fuzz: Make addrman fuzzing harness deterministic (practicalswift)
Pull request description:
Make `CAddrMan` fuzzing harness deterministic.
See [`doc/fuzzing.md`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/fuzzing.md) for information on how to fuzz Bitcoin Core. Don't forget to contribute any coverage increasing inputs you find to the [Bitcoin Core fuzzing corpus repo](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/qa-assets).
Happy fuzzing :)
ACKs for top commit:
Crypt-iQ:
utACK 17a5f172fa9ec509b1c3f950ee8dfb6f025534d2
Tree-SHA512: 725f983745233e9b616782247fa18847e483c074ca4336a5beea8a9009128c3a74b4d50a12662d8ca2177c2e1fc5fc121834df6b459ac0af43c931d77ef7c4d8
e416cfc92bf51f6fd088ab61c2306c5e73877dd0 Add MAX_STANDARD_SCRIPTSIG_SIZE to policy (sanket1729)
Pull request description:
Bitcoin core has a standardness rule for max satisfaction script sig size.
This PR adds to the policy header file so that it is documented along with
along policy rules. The initial reasoning that 1650 is an implicit
limit(would not reach assuming all other policy rules are being
followed) is outdated.
As we now know, bitcoin transactions can have spend conditions are more than
just signatures and there may exist p2sh transactions involving 100 byte
preimages that maybe non-standard because of this rule. Because this
rule is no longer implicit, we should explicitly document it in policy
header file
ACKs for top commit:
sipa:
utACK e416cfc92bf51f6fd088ab61c2306c5e73877dd0
practicalswift:
cr ACK e416cfc92bf51f6fd088ab61c2306c5e73877dd0
theStack:
Code Review ACK e416cfc92bf51f6fd088ab61c2306c5e73877dd0
Tree-SHA512: 1a91ee23dfb6085807e04dd0687d7a443e0f3e0f52d0a995a6599dff28533b0b599afba2724735d93948a64a3e25d0bc016ce3e771c0bd453eef78b22dc2369d
