## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Be more explicit about the fact that spork24 is for non-mainnet only,
enforce it in code.
NOTE: I know we have EHF signalling disabled for mainnet in v20 but I
think it still makes sense to make sure spork24 condition won't slip
into mainnet in some future version accidentally.
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
## 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
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
When Platform restarts on a network, it needs to sign requests using old
quorums.
We shouldn't remove data (secret key shares, vvec) for old Platform
quorums as we do with the rest of the llmqs.
## What was done?
We skip removing for Platform quorums younger than 2 months.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
no
## 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)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
```
Assertion failure:
assertion: quorum != nullptr
file: quorums.cpp, line: 547
function: ScanQuorums
```
## What was done?
Hold cs_main while scanning to make sure tip doesn't move. Happened in
`ProcessPendingInstantSendLocks()` only for me but I thought that it
would probably make sense to apply the same fix in other places too.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run `invalidateblock` for a deep enough height (100s of blocks)
## 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
Use not_null if the function would crash if given a nullptr
## What was done?
Refactored to use gsl::not_null
## How Has This Been Tested?
Compiled
## Breaking Changes
Should be 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
With DIP29 added to v20, miners include best CL Signature in CbTx.
The purpose of this test, is to ensure that mining is still possible
when CL information isn't available.
In such case, miners are expected to copy best CL Signature from CbTx of
previous block.
## What was done?
Two scenarios are implemented:
- Add dynamically a node, make sure `getbestchainlock()` fails, let it
mine a block.
- Disable `SPORK_19_CHAINLOCKS_ENABLED`, add dynamically a node, make
sure `getbestchainlock()` fails, let it mine a block.
In both tests, we make sure the block is accepted by everyone and that
the `bestCLSignature` in CbTx is copied from previous block.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_llmq_chainlocks.py`
## 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: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Addressed issues and comments from [PR
comment](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5469#discussion_r1317886678)
and [PR
comment](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5469#discussion_r1338704082)
`Params()` should be const; global variable `CMNHFManager` is a better
out-come.
## What was done?
The helpers and direct calls of `UpdateMNParams` for each block to
update non-constant member in `Params()` is not needed anymore. Instead
`CMNHFManager` takes cares about status of Signals for each block,
update them dynamically and save in evo db.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests.
## Breaking Changes
Changed rpc `getblockchaininfo`.
the field `ehf` changed meaning: it's now only a flag -1/0; but it is
introduced a new field `ehf_height` now that a height.
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/5471
## What was done?
It splits from https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5443
Adds extra unit tests for BLS basic scheme; enforces BLS basic for Evo
Nodes in serialization/unserialization of CProRegTx, CProUpServTx.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run functional/unit tests + added new unit tests.
## Breaking Changes
Serialization slightly changed, but it should be not breaking change
## 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
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
`./contrib/devtools/gen-manpages.sh` and drop `rc2` and `dirty` suffixes
## 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)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently, on functional tests v20 activates at height 1440 which is
later than needed.
## What was done?
Reduced the window size of v20 from 480 to 400 which activates v20 at
1200.
Adjusted tests to this change.
Note regarding the window analysis for MN payments in
`feature_llmq_evo.py` (reduced from 256 to 48 blocks):
48 window is enough to analyse 4 MNs and 5 EvoNodes (Weighted count=24)
On my machine using develop:
`python3 feature_llmq_rotation.py 145.45s user 30.00s system 68% cpu
4:16.93 total`
With this PR:
`python3 feature_llmq_rotation.py 119.26s user 24.61s system 62% cpu
3:50.89 total`
## How Has This Been Tested?
all tests
## 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
- [ ] 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)_
63631beef6a0046390469971adf4500718ab34ad test: Remove intermittently failing and not very meaningful `BOOST_CHECK` in `cnetaddr_basic` (practicalswift)
Pull request description:
Remove intermittently failing and not very meaningful `BOOST_CHECK` in `cnetaddr_basic`.
Fixes#21682.
Rationale from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21682#issuecomment-819897122:
> I've looked at that test before and I don't think that specific `BOOST_CHECK` makes much sense TBH :)
>
> 1.) I don't understand why we test if `ToString()` output includes `%zone_index`: it clearly doesn't on some platforms, so we cannot rely on it anyways. Then why test it?
>
> 2.) And perhaps more fundamentally: why would we even _want_ to have `%zone_index` in our textual `ToString()` output? I think the expectation is to get say `fe80::1ff:fe23:4567:890a` (without zone index) and not say `fe80::1ff:fe23:4567:890a%eth2 ` or `fe80::1ff:fe23:4567:890a%3 `when doing `ipv6_addr.ToString()` :)
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
review ACK 63631beef6a0046390469971adf4500718ab34ad
Tree-SHA512: 06863d1edfb9ad1ca9bcae09cf3f0f47b58bb29d222b70799c3dc059b96452889026e4b99b132782846d9896e3e798d17c7f9406e0e6a0bec1bffc6edb54e9df
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
We need some network that mimics v20 governance budget changes a bit
better. All our networks _lower_ the budget after v20 activation while
mainnet would actually rise it.
## What was done?
Reuse `nHighSubsidyBlocks` as a starting point for a fixed nSubsidyBase
value to better mimic mainnet changes on v20.
## How Has This Been Tested?
That's a devnet-only change, so no testing yet
## Breaking Changes
Won't sync on old devnets after these 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
- [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>
It's partial due to this missing changes:
```
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25233/files#diff-4cb884d03ebb901069e4ee5de5d02538c40dd9b39919c615d8eaa9d364bbbd77L632
```
cc61bc2e19b1c8cb32778ef42746d32b02cc2671 compat: remove glibcxx sanity checks (fanquake)
Pull request description:
These checks were added in #4339, (see also #4081), to test
our back-compat stubs, however, those stubs no-longer exist (#22930),
meaning that these checks are now just testing some specific standard
library behaviour, without a particular rationale, or reason, compared
to any other standard library functionlity we use.
There has also been some discussion about our sanity checks in the
context of the libbitcoinkernel refactoring, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25065#discussion_r880668218.
Removing the checks removes the need to worry about atleast the
glibcxx checks.
Also remove the list of checks from the doc in `init.h`, because it is
incomplete, and anyone who wants to know what checks are included can
look at the function.
Guix Build (arm64):
```bash
e18a81e25b4707cbe113fb4d3ba2459013c1178e7cecfe446e4f14ee5ecd2ce8 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/arm-linux-gnueabihf/SHA256SUMS.part
9928cc38b79f827018cba0bdde98666b31806afcc79dd95a00acb8e153c36eec guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/arm-linux-gnueabihf/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-arm-linux-gnueabihf-debug.tar.gz
ebf4635ba4688899ae62e4bb17ebb2afb25c538c4a8068ef515920fd4e43754e guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/arm-linux-gnueabihf/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-arm-linux-gnueabihf.tar.gz
74c7e35b47c6d101fda7205f144d37150329b4c360db09d37b8c1437f3390898 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/arm64-apple-darwin/SHA256SUMS.part
6e12643b17be9326f1d873dfe51a52c082671540792877af624b42ca9f6e1791 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/arm64-apple-darwin/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-arm64-apple-darwin-unsigned.dmg
1d86d0416c7a50afd7bd8d850f416b7c7277464ccc95e4dae53b5b59415fc83d guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/arm64-apple-darwin/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-arm64-apple-darwin-unsigned.tar.gz
84070843f23839e7191ad3a667eb63c45f668eb95afbfb3fcdfb8363320f67d4 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/arm64-apple-darwin/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-arm64-apple-darwin.tar.gz
bf6ccd7b8c40476b1dc52b491757313ea3e96c43a01c8aabaf39f94dc1837329 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/dist-archive/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1.tar.gz
25e7e1ff7d8de38632abf9926343c8ba556209f3d03109c92864ffe72813a05f guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/powerpc64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
d0398de83841607b1bf921d4553b30ad5e2d70d0570e96a2eaaf2762e1103c79 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/powerpc64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-powerpc64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
f09cdc2ac2a2bb644f4749f3d74b5210ddb531594c33d127a907f0223e7793e5 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/powerpc64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-powerpc64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
ef36a68ef4e5ee9b311df40062cd2296f897e7b1550e39e0643601cd7d469010 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/powerpc64le-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
937b600a2b86304ccc5b6c71a7eaf8aa5e2020592724cef6a933a1955995480b guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/powerpc64le-linux-gnu/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-powerpc64le-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
eca4eec41e71fdf7a7b0fa4065afa49c47d3b9541ed2cb4d083ad4a0de102e37 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/powerpc64le-linux-gnu/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-powerpc64le-linux-gnu.tar.gz
981c0968c19905925a599cff357ec259c1e806bdb7691c7b52039be450bdad7c guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/riscv64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
89c709967f9a157256281fbf682aad246f2eaad9c2f1797c2787253cbabe12f8 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/riscv64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-riscv64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
454cd830dd382e176f5a23041fc33f93937668245481b0dd29fc04882d9528eb guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/riscv64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-riscv64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
e0812c2dc492e5c5f06e3685d19da8fb29ed38d3b32821d293ef01cb4fefbd79 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/x86_64-apple-darwin/SHA256SUMS.part
0e7d4241d8ac882a8091fa00a7813db87a3e5afec59627e45b6c910cfdd4a7b0 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/x86_64-apple-darwin/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-x86_64-apple-darwin-unsigned.dmg
3faaca046cbb2642445a7dd1f389ed7bf94a65de8372441c36d5cb79c030ce31 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/x86_64-apple-darwin/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-x86_64-apple-darwin-unsigned.tar.gz
73080f032a42db679baf0d09619671ac5b9d85be84a68bdd6b6709eb0e6465bd guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/x86_64-apple-darwin/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-x86_64-apple-darwin.tar.gz
07b6e1b6291404bca1044df4a45b6958b882ffb88c143ba98f1959960a394897 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/x86_64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
16b455f62398f4aa0d3821abb1cceb8151e31c2664e3f974a764a5b8702b50f3 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/x86_64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-x86_64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
3c1a3a6a343f17b83f3b3d47e9426eccd2d0bcc7f824cd958fcf2cf06cdc3276 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/x86_64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
f05afa688ea7211b0049555385fb2acc26986e24d8d00893389160e07037e693 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/x86_64-w64-mingw32/SHA256SUMS.part
8bcbae67dd0746c42e1e7c7db67725a69289b08e9aa97b873d443d0aa355615d guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/x86_64-w64-mingw32/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-win64-debug.zip
efa45e3b76e5ae08a8392d58e741325df572d92c7dd69b65d876cdcda541d2fc guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/x86_64-w64-mingw32/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-win64-setup-unsigned.exe
3a8c2461ca826138c3017d06279a79b4c6bee2a507ad362aa6e424f76678596c guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/x86_64-w64-mingw32/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-win64-unsigned.tar.gz
e56ae4f609d4e6a3ca5917a4bb763c91012ece2d236d6b62a666358791e43525 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/x86_64-w64-mingw32/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-win64.zip
```
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
lgtm ACK cc61bc2e19b1c8cb32778ef42746d32b02cc2671
laanwj:
Concept and code review ACK cc61bc2e19b1c8cb32778ef42746d32b02cc2671
Tree-SHA512: 3da6aba44eef3f864fcbe897db1faa964923756e68c6a713e444b5d01c6d3542c3d7ca26678760e81a7a9e3cd40bd90622d0a7b697c27166817ba4f1023661ef
705c1f0648c72aa97e0ee699ff9a3da23fc9bd61 qt, refactor: Fix 'buttonClicked is deprecated' warnings (Hennadii Stepanov)
c2f4e5ea1d6f01713ac69aaf6018884028aa55bd qt, refactor: Fix 'split is deprecated' warnings (Hennadii Stepanov)
8e12d6996116e786e928077b22d9f47cee27319e qt, refactor: Fix 'QFlags is deprecated' warnings (Hennadii Stepanov)
fa5749c805878304c107bcae0ae5ffa401dc7c4d qt, refactor: Fix 'pixmap is deprecated' warnings (Hennadii Stepanov)
b02264cb5dfcef50eec8a6346471cbaa25370e00 qt, refactor: Fix 'QDateTime is deprecated' warnings (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
[What's New in Qt 5.15](https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/whatsnew515.html#deprecated-modules):
> To help preparing for the transition to Qt 6, numerous classes and member functions that will be removed from Qt 6.0 have been marked as deprecated in the Qt 5.15 release.
Fixes#36
ACKs for top commit:
jonasschnelli:
utACK 705c1f0648c72aa97e0ee699ff9a3da23fc9bd61
promag:
Tested ACK 705c1f0648c72aa97e0ee699ff9a3da23fc9bd61 on macos with Apple clang version 11.0.3 (clang-1103.0.32.62) and brew qt 5.15.1.
Tree-SHA512: 29e00535b4583ceec0dfb29612e86ee29bdea13651b548c6d22167917a4a10464af49160a12b05151030699f690f437ebb9c4ae9f130f66a722415222165b44f
86b1ab64b1a5b56518787ef16ea54ddbbc97d83e refactor: Replace deprecated Qt::SystemLocale{Short,Long}Date (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
As all deprecated warning in Qt 5.15.0 were eliminated in #46, Qt 5.15.1 introduced another one that is fixed in this PR.
Required for https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20182.
Details in Qt docs:
- https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qdatetime.html#toString-1
- https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qdate.html#toString-1
ACKs for top commit:
jarolrod:
Tested ACK 86b1ab6 on MacOS 10.15.7 and Arch Linux both with Qt 5.15.1
jonasschnelli:
Tested ACK 86b1ab64b1a5b56518787ef16ea54ddbbc97d83e
Tree-SHA512: 1dbba8ee70c895bf58317172a9901cdbe5503b1d6258f51caaae88d88d332d9fbd4697c995192d31e3618ddfd532c5f5881289b3af1184422e5a9263a1224115
30cc1c6609ad7868f73e88afe0b0233d395ec08c refactor: Drop `owns_lock()` call (Hennadii Stepanov)
bff4e068b69edd40a00466156f860bde2df29268 refactor: Do not discard `try_lock()` return value (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
Microsoft's C++ Standard Library uses the `[[nodiscard]]` attribute for `try_lock()`.
See: https://github.com/microsoft/STL/blob/main/stl/inc/mutex
This change allows to drop the current suppression for the warning C4838 and helps to prevent the upcoming warning C4858.
See: 539c26c923Fixesbitcoin/bitcoin#26017.
Split from bitcoin/bitcoin#25819.
ACKs for top commit:
vasild:
ACK 30cc1c6609ad7868f73e88afe0b0233d395ec08c
Tree-SHA512: ce17404e1c78af4f763129753caf8e5a0e1c91ba398778fe912f9fcc56a847e8112460d1a1a35bf905a593b7d8e0b16c6b099ad74976b67dca5f4f3eda6ff621
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Having `<protxhash> is not connected to us, badConnection=0` doesn't
help when we don't expect it to be connected 🤷♂️
## What was done?
## 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
MNs don't really vote NO on triggers that do not match their local
candidates because:
1. they bail out too early when they see that they are not the payee
2. the hash for objects to vote NO on was picked incorrectly.
## What was done?
Moved voting out of `CreateGovernanceTrigger` and into its own
`VoteGovernanceTriggers`. Refactored related code to use `optional`
while at it, dropped useless/misleading `IsValid()` call. Added some
safety belts, logging, tests.
## 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
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
reindexed
## 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
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/5640
## What was done?
Tests that `activation_height` projected by `getblockchaininfo` during
locked_in phase.
Now, this test is only possible with v20 activation since v19, dip0024
are buried and mn_rr uses MNEF.
Enabled this test only in `feature_llmq_rotation.py`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
tests
## 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>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
There's too much spamming log items related to new v20 features: credit
pool, asset locks, EHF manager, EHF Signaling for MN_RR.
Some logs are still spamming after this PR but related code is not
changed here https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5658
## What was done?
- Removed some log items, tidy-up other.
- logs that supposed to appear for each block are moved to new
categories EHF and CREDITPOOL
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests, reviewed log output
## 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
Fix Dash Core version in i2p.md and update list of nodes in tor.md (we
do not support v2 tor anymore).
## What was done?
ran a node with `-onlynet=oinion` and picked 8 nodes
## 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)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
No need to log things like `punished MN <protxhash>, penalty 515->515
(max=515)`
(check block 907818 on testnet, it has a lot of these)
## What was done?
## 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)_
It fixes this and similar warnings:
```
qt/test/trafficgraphdatatests.cpp:145:23: warning: ‘int qrand()’ is deprecated: use QRandomGenerator instead [-Wdeprecated-declarations]
145 | int in = qrand() % 1000;
| ~~~~~^~
```
Call of `qsrand` is not needed because QRandomGenerator is already randomly initialized
## 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
fixes#5666
kudos to @tinshen for discovering the issue 👍
## What was done?
add missing logic in FundTransaction
## How Has This Been Tested?
implement/run tests, test rpc manually
## 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?
Renamed `bitcoin` to `coins` in help texts of mining RPCs.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## 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
- [ ] 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
```
test/functional/feature_governance.py:205:59: F821 undefined name 'p0_amount'
test/functional/feature_governance.py:205:95: F821 undefined name 'p1_amount'
test/functional/feature_governance.py:205:131: F821 undefined name 'p2_amount'
```
## What was done?
add missing `self.`
## How Has This Been Tested?
run linter and `feature_governance.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)_
fa74e726c414f5f7a1e63126a69463491f66e0ec refactor: Make FEELER_SLEEP_WINDOW type safe (std::chrono) (MacroFake)
fa3b3cb9b5d944d34b1d5ac3e102ac333482a475 Expose underlying clock in CThreadInterrupt (MacroFake)
Pull request description:
This gets rid of the `value*1000` manual conversion.
ACKs for top commit:
naumenkogs:
utACK fa74e726c414f5f7a1e63126a69463491f66e0ec
dergoegge:
Code review ACK fa74e726c414f5f7a1e63126a69463491f66e0ec
Tree-SHA512: 90409c05c25f0dd2f1c4dead78f707ebfd78b7d84ea4db9fcefd9c4958a1a3338ac657cd9e99eb8b47d52d4485fa3c947dce4ee1559fb56ae65878685e1ed9a3
92b35aba224ad4440f3ea6c01c841596a6a3d6f4 index, refactor: Change sync variables to use `std::chrono::steady_clock` (w0xlt)
Pull request description:
This PR refactors the sync variables to use `std::chrono::steady_clock` as it is best suitable for measuring intervals.
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
utACK 92b35aba224ad4440f3ea6c01c841596a6a3d6f4
ajtowns:
ACK 92b35aba224ad4440f3ea6c01c841596a6a3d6f4 - code review only
Tree-SHA512: cd4bafde47b30beb88c0aac247e41b4dced2ff2845c67a7043619da058dcff4f84374a7c704a698f3055c888d076d25503c2f38ace8fbc5456f624e0efe1e188
4446ef0a549d567a88d82b606aa8c47f115673f9 build: remove support for weak linking getauxval() (fanquake)
e56100c5b4daf2285dde9807bf654599aa19bd6b build: remove arm includes from getauxval() check (fanquake)
Pull request description:
It was [pointed out in #23030](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23030#issuecomment-922893367) that we might be able to get rid of our weak linking of [`getauxval()`](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/getauxval.3.html) (`HAVE_WEAK_GETAUXVAL`) entirely, with only Android being a potential holdout:
> I wonder if it's time to get rid of HAVE_WEAK_GETAUXVAL. I think it's confusing. Either we build against a C library that has this functionality, or not. We don't do this weak linking thing for any other symbols and recently got rid of the other glibc backwards compatibility stuff.
> Unless there is still a current platform that really needs it (Android?), I'd prefer to remove it from the build system, it has caused enough issues.
After looking at Android further, it would seem that given we are moving to using `std::filesystem`, which [requires NDK version 22 and later](https://github.com/android/ndk/wiki/Changelog-r22), and `getauxval` has been available in the since [API version 18](https://developer.android.com/ndk/guides/cpu-features#features_using_libcs_getauxval3), that shouldn't really be an issue. Support for API levels < 19 will be dropped with the NDK 24 release, and according to [one website](https://apilevels.com/), supporting API level 18+ will cover ~99% of devices. Note that in the CI we currently build with NDK version 22 and API level 28.
The other change in this PR is removing the include of headers for ARM intrinsics, from the check for strong `getauxval()` support in configure, as they shouldn't be needed. Including these headers also meant that the check would basically only succeed when building for ARM. This would be an issue if we remove weak linking, as we wouldn't detect `getauxval()` as supported on other platforms. Note that we also use `getauxval()` in our RNG when it's available.
I've checked that with these changes we detect support for strong `getauxval()` on Alpine (muslibc). On Linux, previously we'd be detecting support for weak getauxval(), now we detect strong support. Note that we already require glibc 2.17, and `getauxval()` was introduced in `2.16`.
This is an alternative / supersedes #23030.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review and tested ACK 4446ef0a549d567a88d82b606aa8c47f115673f9
Tree-SHA512: 5f2a9e9cc2d63bddab73f0dcb169d4d6beda74622af82bc0439722f1189f81d052e2fc1eaf27056a7a606320d5ddc4c11075f0d051dd93d77c5e1c15337f354a
fea75ad3caa29972db32d3ce7e0fe125ec77a0eb refactor: Drop `boost/algorithm/string/replace.hpp` dependency (Hennadii Stepanov)
857526e8cbb0847a865e9c2509425960d458f535 test: Add test case for `ReplaceAll()` function (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
A new implementation of the `ReplaceAll()` seems enough for all of our purposes.
ACKs for top commit:
adam2k:
ACK Tested fea75ad3caa29972db32d3ce7e0fe125ec77a0eb
theStack:
Code-review ACK fea75ad3caa29972db32d3ce7e0fe125ec77a0eb
Tree-SHA512: dacfffc9d2bd1fb9f034baf8c045b1e8657b766db2f0a7f8ef7e25ee6cd888f315b0124c54aba7a29ae59186b176ef9868a8b709dc995ea215c6b4ce58e174d9
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Bump version
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
Na
## Breaking Changes
Na
## 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
Fixed some clang-tidy warnings
## What was done?
used more if-init
## How Has This Been Tested?
built
## 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>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Noticed a couple of things while I was trying to figure out if an
[issue](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5627#discussion_r1367153099)
@knst mentioned in #5627 could actually exist:
1. `GetPaymentsLimit()` won't work correctly with historical blocks rn.
We don't use it that way internally but it could be done via rpc and it
should provide correct results.
2. superblock params on regtest are too small to test them properly
3. because of (2) and a huge v20 activation window (comparing to sb
params) `feature_governance.py` doesn't test v20 switching states.
There's also no "sb on v20 activation block" test.
~NOTE: based on #5639 atm~
## What was done?
fix it, 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
- [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
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)_
