sikkienl/dash
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/dashpay/dash.git synced 2024-12-27 04:52:59 +01:00
Code Issues Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
24,667 Commits 24 Branches 554 Tags 575 MiB
54501fb5fb
Commit Graph

1971 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Wladimir J. van der Laan
9fd9e4cf5a Merge #20567: test: Add option to git-subtree-check to do full check, add help 
34c80d9eee7d21755f2bb80f7c97fd30d2c7b656 test: Add option to git-subtree-check to do full check, add help (Wladimir J. van der Laan)

Pull request description:

  This adds a brief help text to `git-subtree-check.sh` and adds an option to do a full remote check instead of having two different code paths with a successful exit status. Also make it explicit that the CI is not doing this.

ACKs for top commit:
  fjahr:
    tested ACK 34c80d9eee7d21755f2bb80f7c97fd30d2c7b656

Tree-SHA512: 20f672fd3b3c1d633eccf9998fdd738194cdd7d10cc206691f2dcc28bbbf8187b8d06b87814f875a06145b179f5ca1f4f4f9922972be72759cf5ac6e0c11abd1
 2023-12-06 11:40:14 -06:00
Wladimir J. van der Laan
f706a562a7 Merge #19258: doc: improve subtree check instructions 
a4a3fc4cd2e6f53cdffcc2962fd152a4e40c7413 doc: improve subtree check instructions (Sjors Provoost)

Pull request description:

  Running `git-subtree-check.sh` requires adding the subtree repository as a remote. I learned that several years ago and then forgot again.

  This PR also improves the error message if the subtree commit can't be found.

ACKs for top commit:
  laanwj:
    ACK a4a3fc4cd2e6f53cdffcc2962fd152a4e40c7413
  fanquake:
    ACK a4a3fc4cd2e6f53cdffcc2962fd152a4e40c7413 - this looks ok.

Tree-SHA512: 959bd923726c172d17f9f97f8a56988bf2df5a94d3131e5152a66150b941394cee9e82fdc6b86e09c0ba91d123a496599f07ca454212168d8d301738394c12c8
 2023-12-06 11:40:14 -06:00
MarcoFalke
17b67ba224 Merge #11394: Perform a weaker subtree check in Travis 
487aff421 Check subtree consistency in Travis (Pieter Wuille)
e1d0cc23a Improve git-subtree-check.sh (Pieter Wuille)

Pull request description:

  Apparently many of our subtrees get modified by PRs in this repository, without getting noticed.

  To improve upon this:
  * Make git-subtree-check.sh capable of doing a weaker consistency check (that doesn't need access to external repositories), but which should be sufficient to detect unintended changes. It can be fooled by a fake subtree merge commit, but that would hopefully be obvious to reviewers.
  * Make Travis invoke this subtree check for each of our subtrees.

  Note that Travis is currently expected to fail on this PR, as 2 out of 4 subtrees (`src/secp156k1` and `src/univalue` have been modified directly in master).

Tree-SHA512: 465b680392d3daf38a8c1dda77d6f74b1d1c23324c378774777fb95aa673e119a8f7e3ccc124e41d97b5ac8975f3d79f3015797d2d309666582394364917ec4e
 2023-12-06 11:40:14 -06:00
fanquake
0eba155aa7 Merge #19072: doc: Expand section on Getting Started 
facef3d4131f9980a4516282f11731361559509c doc: Explain that anyone can work on good first issues, move text to CONTRIBUTING.md (MarcoFalke)
fae2fb2a196ee864e9a13fffc24a0279cd5d17e6 doc: Expand section on Getting Started (MarcoFalke)
100000d1b2c2e38d7a14a31b0af79e0e4316b04c doc: Add headings to CONTRIBUTING.md (MarcoFalke)
fab893e0caf510d4836a20194892ef9c71426c51 doc: Fix unrelated typos reported by codespell (MarcoFalke)

Pull request description:

  Some random doc changes:

  * Add sections to docs, so that they can be linked to
  * Explain that anyone (even maintainers) are allowed to work on good first issues
  * Expand section on Getting Started slightly

ACKs for top commit:
  hebasto:
    ACK facef3d4131f9980a4516282f11731361559509c
  fanquake:
    ACK facef3d4131f9980a4516282f11731361559509c

Tree-SHA512: 8998e273a76dbf4ca77e79374c14efe4dfcc5c6df6b7d801e1e1e436711dbe6f76b436f9cbc6cacb45a56827babdd6396f3bd376a9426ee7be3bb9b8a3b8e383
 2023-12-06 11:40:14 -06:00
fanquake
2da9982e55 Merge #17829: scripted-diff: Bump copyright of files changed in 2019 
aaaaad6ac95b402fe18d019d67897ced6b316ee0 scripted-diff: Bump copyright of files changed in 2019 (MarcoFalke)

Pull request description:

ACKs for top commit:
  practicalswift:
    ACK aaaaad6ac95b402fe18d019d67897ced6b316ee0
  promag:
    ACK aaaaad6ac95b402fe18d019d67897ced6b316ee0 🎉
  fanquake:
    ACK aaaaad6ac95b402fe18d019d67897ced6b316ee0 - going to merge this now because the year is over and conflicts are minimal.

Tree-SHA512: 58cb1f53bc4c1395b2766f36fabc7e2332e213780a802762fff0afd59468dad0c3265f553714d761c7a2c44ff90f7dc250f04458f4b2eb8eef8b94f8c9891321
 2023-12-06 11:40:14 -06:00
MarcoFalke
921c93db66 Merge #16973: test: Fix combine_logs.py for AppVeyor build 
d478a472eb0d666e8a762ed8d24fafbabc5f94f3 test: Fix combine_logs.py for AppVeyor build (Martin Zumsande)

Pull request description:

  Fixes #16894

  This fixes the problem of AppVeyor builds not showing `debug.log` if a functional test fails, because the windows separator `\` doesn't work together with the regex in `combine_logs.py`.

  A fix was already attempted in  #16896, however, that PR became inactive and was marked "up for grabs", plus it's a really small change.

  As suggested by jamesob, this PR uses `pathlib`: For the glob and to convert the path to a posix-style string, it leaves the regex as is (in contrast to #16896 which adjusted the regex).

  I tested this locally on Windows and Ubuntu.

Top commit has no ACKs.

Tree-SHA512: 603b4359b6009b6da874c30f69759acda03730ee5747898a0fe957a5fc37ee9ba07858c6aa2169bf4c40521f37e47138e8314d698652ea2760fa0a3f76b890bd
 2023-12-06 11:40:14 -06:00
MarcoFalke
9d4282cb72 partial Merge #15893: Add test for superfluous witness record in deserialization 
cc556e4a30 Add test for superfluous witness record in deserialization (Gregory Sanders)
25b0786581 Fix missing input template by making minimal tx (Gregory Sanders)

Pull request description:

  Adds coverage for changed behavior in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14039

ACKs for commit cc556e:
  MarcoFalke:
    utACK cc556e4a30b4a32eab6722f590489d89b2875de3

Tree-SHA512: 3404c8f75e87503983fac5ae27d877309eb3b902f2ec993762911c71610ca449bef0ed98bd17e029414828025b2713e1bd012e63b2a06497e34f1056acaa6321
 2023-12-06 11:40:14 -06:00
MarcoFalke
549a358fe2 Merge #15102: test: Run invalid_txs.InputMissing test in feature_block 
fac4e731a8 test: Run invalid_txs.InputMissing test in feature_block (MarcoFalke)

Pull request description:

Tree-SHA512: 24c3f519ba0cf417b66e0df6f5ddc0430e3f419af4705a9c85096da47ff4d8f51487d65b68f3f993800003b3f936d95d8a0bade846e1b45f95b2bdbecc9ebab7
 2023-12-06 11:40:14 -06:00
MarcoFalke
56af7d6727
Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#22313: test: Add missing sync_all to feature_coinstatsindex 
fafd9165e911bf33d6212ca8a613b71878c82449 test: Add missing sync_all to feature_coinstatsindex (MarcoFalke)

Pull request description:

  Sync the blocks before invalidating them to ensure all nodes are on the right tip. Otherwise nodes[0] might stay on the "stale" block and the test fails (intermittently)

ACKs for top commit:
  jamesob:
    crACK fafd9165e9

Tree-SHA512: ca567b97b839b56c91d52831eaac18d8c843d376be90c9fd8b49d2eb4a46b801a1d2402996d5dfe2bef3e2c9bd75d19ed443e3f42cc4679c5f20043ba556efc8
 2023-12-03 20:45:01 -06:00
MarcoFalke
ec4cbc28d6
Merge #20954: test: Declare nodes type in test_framework.py. 
5353b0c64d32e44fc411464e080d4b00fae7124e Change type definitions for "chain" and "setup_clean_chain" from type comments to Python 3.6+ types. Additionally, set type for "nodes". (Kiminuo)

Pull request description:

  ### Motivation

  When I wanted to understand better https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19145/files#diff-4bebbd3b112dc222ea7e75ef051838ceffcee63b9e9234a98a4cc7251d34451b test, I noticed that navigation in PyCharm/VS Code did not work for `nodes` variable. I think this is frustrating, especially for newcomers.

  ### Summary

  * This PR modifies Python 3.5 [type comments](https://mypy.readthedocs.io/en/stable/cheat_sheet_py3.html#variables) to Python 3.6+ types and adds a proper type for `nodes` [instance attribute](https://mypy.readthedocs.io/en/stable/class_basics.html#instance-and-class-attributes).
  * This PR does not change behavior.
  * This PR is intentionally very small, if the concept is accepted, a follow-up PRs can be more ambitious.

  ### End result

  1. Open `test/functional/feature_abortnode.py`
  2. Move your caret to: `self.nodes[0].generate[caret here](3)`
  3. Use "Go to definition" [F12] should work now.

  I have tested this on PyCharm (Windows, Ubuntu) and VS Code (Windows, Ubuntu).

  Note: Some `TestNode` methods (e.g. `self.nodes[0].getblock(...)` ) use `__call__` mechanism and navigation does not work for them even with this PR.

ACKs for top commit:
  laanwj:
    ACK 5353b0c64d32e44fc411464e080d4b00fae7124e
  theStack:
    ACK 5353b0c64d32e44fc411464e080d4b00fae7124e

Tree-SHA512: 821773f052ab9b2889dc357d38c59407a4af09e3b86d7134fcca7d78e5edf3a5ede9bfb37595ea97caf9ebfcbda372bcf73763b7f89b0677670f21b3e396a12b
 2023-12-03 20:44:55 -06:00
MarcoFalke
7fbc0f359c Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#14604: tests: Add test and refactor feature_block.py 
55311197c483477b79883da5da09f2bc71acc7cf Added new test for future blocks reacceptance (sanket1729)
511a5af4622915c236cfb11df5234232c2983e45 Fixed inconsistencies between code and comments (sanket1729)

Pull request description:

  This Commit does 3 things:
  1) Adds a test case for checking reacceptance a previously rejected block which
  was too far in the future.
  ~~2) clean up uses of rehash or calc_sha256 where it was not needed~~
  3) While constructing block 44, this commit makes the code consistent with the expected figure in
  the comment just above it by adding a transaction to the block.
  4) Fix comment describing `sign_tx()` function

ACKs for top commit:
  duncandean:
    reACK 5531119
  brunoerg:
    reACK 55311197c483477b79883da5da09f2bc71acc7cf

Tree-SHA512: d40c72fcdbb0b2a0715adc58441eeea08147ee2ec5e371a4ccc824ebfdc6450698bd40aaeecb7ea7bfdb3cd1b264dd821b890276fff8b8d89b7225cdd9d6b546
 2023-12-03 20:32:22 -06:00
MarcoFalke
d667e57dc6 Merge #20466: test: Fix intermittent p2p_fingerprint issue 
fad7be584ffaf8099cc099d9378ba831c9483260 test: Fix intermittent p2p_finerprint issue (MarcoFalke)

Pull request description:

  A single sync_with_ping can't be used to drop a block announcement, as the block might be sent *after* the ping has been responded to.

  Fix that by waiting for the block.

ACKs for top commit:
  theStack:
    ACK fad7be584ffaf8099cc099d9378ba831c9483260

Tree-SHA512: d43ba9d07273486858f65a26326cc6637ef743bf7b400e5048ba7eac266fb1893283e6503dd49f179caa1abab2977315fb70ba9fba34be9a817a74259d8e4034
 2023-12-03 20:32:22 -06:00
MarcoFalke
f4ea109e65 (partial) Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#21562: [net processing] Various tidying up of PeerManagerImpl ctor 
fde1bf4f6136638e84cdf9806eedaae08e841bbf [net processing] Default initialize m_recent_confirmed_transactions (John Newbery)
37dcd12d539e4a875581fa049aa0f7fafeb932a4 scripted-diff: Rename recentRejects (John Newbery)
cd9902ac5054c01228d52616bf85f7196364d4ff [net processing] Default initialize recentRejects (John Newbery)
a28bfd1d4cfa523a6abf3832dbfd6183cd546944 [net processing] Default initialize m_stale_tip_check_time (John Newbery)
9190b01d8dcf03b74e9b9e1653688a97ac171b37 [net processing] Add Orphanage empty consistency check (John Newbery)

Pull request description:

  - Use default initialization of PeerManagerImpl members where possible
  - Remove unique_ptr indirection where it's not needed

ACKs for top commit:
  MarcoFalke:
    ACK fde1bf4f6136638e84cdf9806eedaae08e841bbf 👞
  theStack:
    re-ACK fde1bf4f6136638e84cdf9806eedaae08e841bbf

Tree-SHA512: 7ddedcc972df8e933e1fbe5c88b8ea17df89e1e58fc769518512c5540e49dc8eddb3f47e78d1329a6fc5644d2c1d11c981f681fd633f5218bfa4b3e6a86f3d7b
 2023-12-03 20:25:16 -06:00
MarcoFalke
42aea04810 Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#22530: log: sort logging categories alphabetically 
d596dba9877e7ead3fb5426cbe7e608fbcbfe3eb test: assert logging categories are sorted in rpc and help (Jon Atack)
17bbff3b88132c0c95b29b59100456b85e26df75 log, refactor: use guard clause in LogCategoriesList() (Jon Atack)
7c57297319bc386afaf06528778384fe58576ef9 log: sort LogCategoriesList and LogCategoriesString alphabetically (Jon Atack)
f720cfa824f1be863349e7016080f8fb1c3c76c2 test: verify number of categories returned by logging RPC (Jon Atack)

Pull request description:

  Sorting the logging categories seems more user-friendly with the number of categories we now have, allowing CLI users to more quickly find a particular category.

  before
  ```
  $ bitcoin-cli help logging
  ...
  The valid logging categories are: net, tor, mempool, http, bench, zmq, walletdb, rpc, estimatefee, addrman, selectcoins, reindex, cmpctblock, rand, prune, proxy, mempoolrej, libevent, coindb, qt, leveldb, validation, i2p, ipc

  $ bitcoind -h | grep -A8 "debug=<category>"
    -debug=<category>
         ...
         output all debugging information. <category> can be: net, tor,
         mempool, http, bench, zmq, walletdb, rpc, estimatefee, addrman,
         selectcoins, reindex, cmpctblock, rand, prune, proxy, mempoolrej,
         libevent, coindb, qt, leveldb, validation, i2p, ipc.

  $ bitcoin-cli logging [] '["addrman"]'
  {
    "net": false,
    "tor": true,
    "mempool": false,
    "http": false,
    "bench": false,
    "zmq": false,
    "walletdb": false,
    "rpc": false,
    "estimatefee": false,
    "addrman": false,
    "selectcoins": false,
    "reindex": false,
    "cmpctblock": false,
    "rand": false,
    "prune": false,
    "proxy": true,
    "mempoolrej": false,
    "libevent": false,
    "coindb": false,
    "qt": false,
    "leveldb": false,
    "validation": false,
    "i2p": true,
    "ipc": false
  }
  ```

  after

  ```
  $ bitcoin-cli help logging
  ...
  The valid logging categories are: addrman, bench, cmpctblock, coindb, estimatefee, http, i2p, ipc, leveldb, libevent, mempool, mempoolrej, net, proxy, prune, qt, rand, reindex, rpc, selectcoins, tor, validation, walletdb, zmq

  $ bitcoind -h | grep -A8 "debug=<category>"
    -debug=<category>
         ...
         output all debugging information. <category> can be: addrman,
         bench, cmpctblock, coindb, estimatefee, http, i2p, ipc, leveldb,
         libevent, mempool, mempoolrej, net, proxy, prune, qt, rand,
         reindex, rpc, selectcoins, tor, validation, walletdb, zmq.

  $ bitcoin-cli logging [] '["addrman"]'
  {
    "addrman": false,
    "bench": false,
    "cmpctblock": false,
    "coindb": false,
    "estimatefee": false,
    "http": false,
    "i2p": false,
    "ipc": false,
    "leveldb": false,
    "libevent": false,
    "mempool": false,
    "mempoolrej": false,
    "net": false,
    "proxy": false,
    "prune": false,
    "qt": false,
    "rand": false,
    "reindex": false,
    "rpc": false,
    "selectcoins": false,
    "tor": false,
    "validation": false,
    "walletdb": false,
    "zmq": false
  }
  ```

ACKs for top commit:
  theStack:
    re-ACK d596dba9877e7ead3fb5426cbe7e608fbcbfe3eb

Tree-SHA512: d546257f562b0a288d1b19a028f1a510aaf21bd21da058e7c84653d305ea8662ecb4647ebefd2b97411f845fe5b0b841d40d3fe6814eefcb8ce82df341dfce22
 2023-12-03 20:25:16 -06:00
MarcoFalke
0845e1956e Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#22139: test: add type annotations to util.get_rpc_proxy 
fbeb8c43bc5bce131e15eb9e162ea457bfe2b83e test: add type annotations to util.get_rpc_proxy (fanquake)

Pull request description:

  Split out from #22092 while we address the functional test failure.

ACKs for top commit:
  instagibbs:
    ACK fbeb8c43bc

Tree-SHA512: 031ef8703202ae5271787719fc3fea8693574b2eb937ccf852875de95798d7fa3c39a8db7c91993d0c946b45d9b4d6de570bd1102e0344348784723bd84803a8
 2023-12-03 20:13:09 -06:00
MarcoFalke
fbddd23cd4 Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#22528: refactor: move GetTransaction to node/transaction.cpp 
f685a13bef0418663015ea6d8f448f075510c0ec doc: GetTransaction()/getrawtransaction follow-ups to #22383 (John Newbery)
abc57e1f0882a1a2bb20474648419979af6e383d refactor: move `GetTransaction(...)` to node/transaction.cpp (Sebastian Falbesoner)

Pull request description:

  ~This PR is based on #22383, which should be reviewed first~ (merged by now).

  In [yesterday's PR review club session to PR 22383](https://bitcoincore.reviews/22383), the idea of moving the function `GetTransaction(...)` from src/validation.cpp to src/node/transaction.cpp came up. With this, the circular dependency "index/txindex -> validation -> index/txindex" is removed (see change in `lint-circular-dependencies.sh`). Thanks to jnewbery for suggesting and to sipa for providing historical background.

  Relevant IRC log:
  ```
  17:52 <jnewbery> Was anyone surprised that GetTransaction() is in validation.cpp? It seems to me that node/transaction.cpp would be a more appropriate place for it.
  17:53 <raj_> jnewbery, +1
  17:53 <stickies-v> agreed!
  17:54 <glozow> jnewbery ya
  17:54 <jnewbery> seems weird that validation would call into txindex. I wonder if we remove this function, then validation would no longer need to #include txindex
  17:54 <sipa> GetTransaction predates node/transaction.cpp, and even the generic index framework itself :)
  17:55 <sipa> (before 0.8, validation itself used the txindex)
  17:55 <jnewbery> (and GetTransaction() seems like a natural sibling to BroadcastTransaction(), which is already in node/transaction.cpp)
  17:55 <jnewbery> sipa: right, this is not meant as a criticism of course. Just wondering if we can organize things a bit more rationally now that we have better separation between things.
  17:55 <sipa> jnewbery: sure, just providing background
  17:56 <sipa> seems very reasonable to move it elsewhere now
  ```

  The commit should be trivial to review with `--color-moved`.

ACKs for top commit:
  jnewbery:
    Code review ACK f685a13bef0418663015ea6d8f448f075510c0ec
  rajarshimaitra:
    tACK f685a13bef
  mjdietzx:
    crACK f685a13bef0418663015ea6d8f448f075510c0ec
  LarryRuane:
    Code review, test ACK f685a13bef0418663015ea6d8f448f075510c0ec

Tree-SHA512: 0e844a6ecb1be04c638b55bc4478c2949549a4fcae01c984eee078de74d176fb19d508fc09360a62ad130677bfa7daf703b67870800e55942838d7313246248c
 2023-12-03 20:13:09 -06:00
MarcoFalke
7eb5033d28 Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#22510: test: add test for RPC error 'Transaction already in block chain' 
2ebf2fe0e4727a5a57a03f4283bdf1e263855803 test: check for RPC error 'Transaction already in block chain' (-27) (Sebastian Falbesoner)

Pull request description:

  This PR adds missing test coverage for the RPC error "Transaction already in block chain" (error code `RPC_VERIFY_ALREADY_IN_CHAIN` = `RPC_TRANSACTION_ALREADY_IN_CHAIN` = -27), which is thrown in the function `BroadcastTransaction` (src/node/transaction.cpp).

ACKs for top commit:
  kristapsk:
    ACK 2ebf2fe0e4727a5a57a03f4283bdf1e263855803 (ran linter, looked at changes and ran modified test and checked code in `src/node/transaction.cpp`)
  darosior:
    ACK 2ebf2fe0e4727a5a57a03f4283bdf1e263855803

Tree-SHA512: 8bfbd3ff3da0cb3b8745f69b8ca2377f85fa99f0270750840b60e6ae43b5645c5c59b236993e8b2ad0444ec4171484e4f1ee23fa7e81b79d4222bcb623666fa5
 2023-12-03 20:13:09 -06:00
MarcoFalke
06e467154f Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#22407: rpc: Return block time in getblockchaininfo 
20edf4bcf61e9fa310c3d7f3cac0c80a04df5364 rpc: Return block time in getblockchaininfo (João Barbosa)

Pull request description:

  Return tip time in `getblockchaininfo`, for some use cases this can save a call to `getblock`.

ACKs for top commit:
  naumenkogs:
    ACK 20edf4bcf61e9fa310c3d7f3cac0c80a04df5364
  theStack:
    re-ACK 20edf4bcf61e9fa310c3d7f3cac0c80a04df5364
  0xB10C:
    ACK 20edf4bcf61e9fa310c3d7f3cac0c80a04df5364
  kristapsk:
    ACK 20edf4bcf61e9fa310c3d7f3cac0c80a04df5364
  Zero-1729:
    re-ACK 20edf4bcf61e9fa310c3d7f3cac0c80a04df5364

Tree-SHA512: 29a920cfff1ef53e0af601c3f93f8f9171f3be47fc84b0fa293cb865b824976e8c1510b17b27d17daf0b8e658dd77d9dc388373395f0919fc4a23cd5019642d5
 2023-12-03 20:13:09 -06:00
MarcoFalke
f947086292 Merge #18855: tests: feature_backwards_compatibility.py test downgrade after upgrade 
489ebfd7a16443d8263c048d55622da297df7c39 tests: feature_backwards_compatibility.py test downgrade after upgrade (Andrew Chow)

Pull request description:

  After upgrading the node, try to go back to the original version to make sure that using a newer node version does not prevent the wallet file from being downgraded again.

ACKs for top commit:
  MarcoFalke:
    ACK 489ebfd7a16443d8263c048d55622da297df7c39

Tree-SHA512: 86231de6514b3657912fd9d6621212166fd2b29b591fc97120092c548babcf1d6f50b5bd103b28cecde395a26809134f01c1a198725596c3626420de3fd1f017
 2023-12-03 20:01:26 -06:00
Konstantin Akimov
5035a1cc4a Merge #18610: scripted-diff: test: replace command with msgtype (naming) 2023-12-03 20:01:26 -06:00
MarcoFalke
738d6b1c70 Merge #19304: test: Check that message sends successfully when header is split across two buffers 
80d4423f997e15780bfa3f91bf4b4bf656b8ea45 Test buffered valid message (Troy Giorshev)

Pull request description:

  This PR is a tweak of #19302.  This sends a valid message.

  Additionally, this test includes logging in the same vein as #19272.

ACKs for top commit:
  MarcoFalke:
    tested ACK 80d4423f997e15780bfa3f91bf4b4bf656b8ea45 (added an assert(false) to observe deterministic coverage) 🌦
  gzhao408:
    ACK 80d4423f99 👊

Tree-SHA512: 3b1aa5ec480a1661917354788923d64595e2886448c9697ec0606a81293e8b4a4642b2b3cc9afb2206ce6f74e5c6d687308c5ad19cb73c5b354d3071ad8496f8
 2023-12-03 20:01:26 -06:00
Konstantin Akimov
b292c41eea partial Merge #18628: test: Add various low-level p2p tests 
Adds missing changes from p2p_invalid_tx.py but one assert is still disabled

fa4c29bc1d2425f861845bae4f3816d9817e622a test: Add various low-level p2p tests (MarcoFalke)

Pull request description:

ACKs for top commit:
  jonatack:
    ACK fa4c29bc1d242

Tree-SHA512: 842821b97359d4747c763398f7013415858c18a300cd882887bc812d039b5cbb67b9aa6f68434575dbc3c52f7eb8c43d1b293a59555a7242c0ca615cf44dc0aa
 2023-12-03 20:01:26 -06:00
Konstantin Akimov
fd2e9857aa fix: follow-up partial bitcoin/bitcoin#25063 - actually load binaries with x86_64-apple-darwin platform 2023-11-24 11:23:46 -06:00
MarcoFalke
d7bdf8e424 Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#26694: test: get_previous_releases.py: M1/M2 macs can't run unsigned arm64 binaries; self-sign when needed 
dc12f2e212dfacbe238cf68eb454b9ec71169bbc test: improve error msg on previous release tarball extraction failure (kdmukai)
7121fd8fa7de50ff67157f81f9e0f267b9795dbb test: self-sign previous release binaries for arm64 macOS (kdmukai)

Pull request description:

  ## The Problem
  If you run `test/get_previous_releases.py -b` on an M1 or M2 mac, you'll get an unsigned v23.0 binary in the arm64 tarball. macOS [sets stricter requirements on ARM binaries](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26996578) so the unsigned arm64 binary is apparently completely unusable without being signed/notarized(?).

  This means that any test that depends on a previous release (e.g. `wallet_backwards_compatibility.py`) will fail because the v23.0 node cannot launch:

  ```
  TestFramework (ERROR): Assertion failed
  Traceback (most recent call last):
    File "/Users/kdmukai/dev/bitcoin-core/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 563, in start_nodes
      node.wait_for_rpc_connection()
    File "/Users/kdmukai/dev/bitcoin-core/test/functional/test_framework/test_node.py", line 231, in wait_for_rpc_connection
      raise FailedToStartError(self._node_msg(
  test_framework.test_node.FailedToStartError: [node 2] bitcoind exited with status -9 during initialization
  ```

  This can also be confirmed by downloading bitcoin-23.0-arm64-apple-darwin.tar.gz (https://bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-core-23.0/) and trying to run any of the binaries manually on an M1 or M2 mac.

  ## Solution in this PR
  (UPDATED) Per @ hebasto, we can self-sign the arm64 binaries. This PR checks each binary in the previous release's "bin/" and verifies if the arm64 binary is signed. If not, attempt to self-sign and confirm success.

  (note: an earlier version of this PR downloaded the x86_64 binary as a workaround but this approach has been discarded)

  ## Longer term solution
  If possible, produce signed arm64 binaries in a future v23.x tarball?

  Note that this same problem affects the new v24.0.1 arm64 tarball so perhaps a signed v24.x.x tarball would also be ideal?

  That being said, this PR will check all current and future arm64 binaries and self-sign as needed, so perhaps we need not worry about pre-signing the tarball binaries. And I did test a version of `get_previous_releases.py` that includes the new v24.0.1 binaries and it successfully self-signed both v23.0 and v24.0.1, as expected.

  ## Further info:
  Somewhat related to: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15774#issuecomment-1265164753

  And @ fanquake noted on IRC that you can confirm which binaries are or are not signed via:
  ```
  $ codesign -v -d bitcoin-qt
  bitcoin-qt: code object is not signed at all
  ```

ACKs for top commit:
  hebasto:
    ACK dc12f2e212dfacbe238cf68eb454b9ec71169bbc

Tree-SHA512: 644895f8e97f5ffb3c4754c1db2c48abd77fa100c2058e3c896af04806596fc2b9c807a3f3a2add5be53301ad40ca2b8171585bd254e691f6eb38714d938396b
 2023-11-24 11:23:46 -06:00
MacroFake
d5654db27e partial Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#25063: test: previous releases: add v23.0 
dba123167236a172d2d33861d58aa94a19729671 test: previous releases: add v23.0 (Sjors Provoost)

Pull request description:

  Follows the same pattern as d8b705f1caeb3b4a6790cb26e4e5584ca791d965 (v22.0) and 8a57a06a5062dd8dfdefca4e404d0ddbd2a3da1d (v0.21.0).

  Starting from v23.0 there is a separate macOS release for x86_64 and aarch64.

ACKs for top commit:
  prusnak:
    Approach ACK dba123167236a172d2d33861d58aa94a19729671

Tree-SHA512: 249aeddd5e80e163578581e5c8e9b6579f3694abc3d1fb68dddb7b42d75021ad85266688ec4a365a6631d82a65a19873aff7ba61c0ea59d21f8adbe4b772dc16
 2023-11-24 11:23:46 -06:00
Kittywhiskers Van Gogh
4ac25312cc partial bitcoin#27445: Update src/secp256k1 subtree to release v0.3.1 
excludes:
- 719a74989be3cfbc4422ec07cac199c295d28d05
- 621c17869d3754559c03e4f2bee73885659e0c68
 2023-11-21 07:59:03 -06:00
Odysseas Gabrielides
112564974d
refactor: deprecate non-deterministic IS support (#5553) 
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Non-deterministic IS locks aren't used anymore since v18 dip24.
We should drop that support to make code simpler.

## What was done?
Dropped non-deterministic IS code, `evo_instantsend_tests` and
`feature_llmq_is_migration.py` (don't need it anymore), adjusted func
tests.

## How Has This Been Tested?
all tests, synced Testnet

## Breaking Changes

## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [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: Konstantin Akimov <545784+knst@users.noreply.github.com>
 2023-11-20 10:17:04 -06:00
fanquake
5a4406ef98 Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#26153: Reduce wasted pseudorandom bytes in ChaCha20 + various improvements 
511aa4f1c7508f15cab8d7e58007900ad6fd3d5d Add unit test for ChaCha20's new caching (Pieter Wuille)
fb243d25f754da8f01793b41e2d225b917f3e5d7 Improve test vectors for ChaCha20 (Pieter Wuille)
93aee8bbdad808b7009279b67470d496cc26b936 Inline ChaCha20 32-byte specific constants (Pieter Wuille)
62ec713961ade7b58e90c905395558a41e8a59f0 Only support 32-byte keys in ChaCha20{,Aligned} (Pieter Wuille)
f21994a02e1cc46d41995581b54222abc655be93 Use ChaCha20Aligned in MuHash3072 code (Pieter Wuille)
5d16f757639e2cc6e81db6e07bc1d5dd74abca6c Use ChaCha20 caching in FastRandomContext (Pieter Wuille)
38eaece67b1bc37b2f502348c5d7537480a34346 Add fuzz test for testing that ChaCha20 works as a stream (Pieter Wuille)
5f05b27841af0bed1b6e7de5f46ffe33e5919e4d Add xoroshiro128++ PRNG (Martin Leitner-Ankerl)
12ff72476ac0dbf8add736ad3fb5fad2eeab156c Make unrestricted ChaCha20 cipher not waste keystream bytes (Pieter Wuille)
6babf402130a8f3ef3058594750aeaa50b8f5044 Rename ChaCha20::Seek -> Seek64 to clarify multiple of 64 (Pieter Wuille)
e37bcaa0a6dbb334ab6e817efcb609ccee6edc39 Split ChaCha20 into aligned/unaligned variants (Pieter Wuille)

Pull request description:

  This is an alternative to #25354 (by my benchmarking, somewhat faster), subsumes #25712, and adds additional test vectors.

  It separates the multiple-of-64-bytes-only "core" logic (which becomes simpler) from a layer around which performs caching/slicing to support arbitrary byte amounts. Both have their uses (in particular, the MuHash3072 code can benefit from multiple-of-64-bytes assumptions), plus the separation results in more readable code. Also, since FastRandomContext effectively had its own (more naive) caching on top of ChaCha20, that can be dropped in favor of ChaCha20's new built-in caching.

  I thought about rebasing #25712 on top of this, but the changes before are fairly extensive, so redid it instead.

ACKs for top commit:
  ajtowns:
    ut reACK 511aa4f1c7508f15cab8d7e58007900ad6fd3d5d
  dhruv:
    tACK crACK 511aa4f1c7

Tree-SHA512: 3aa80971322a93e780c75a8d35bd39da3a9ea570fbae4491eaf0c45242f5f670a24a592c50ad870d5fd09b9f88ec06e274e8aa3cefd9561d623c63f7198cf2c7
 2023-11-19 10:20:12 -06:00
Konstantin Akimov
ba97f49f2f
refactor: re-order headers and forward declarations to improve compile time (#5693) 
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Some headers include other heavy headers, such as `logging.h`,
`tinyformat.h`, `iostream`. These headers are heavy and increase
compilation time on scale of whole project drastically because can be
used in many other headers.

## What was done?
Moved many heavy includes from headers to cpp files to optimize
compilation time.
In some places  added forward declarations if it is reasonable.

As side effect removed 2 circular dependencies:
```
"llmq/debug -> llmq/dkgsessionhandler -> llmq/debug"
"llmq/debug -> llmq/dkgsessionhandler -> llmq/dkgsession -> llmq/debug"
```


## How Has This Been Tested?
Run build 2 times before refactoring and after refactoring: `make clean
&& sleep 10s; time make -j18`

Before refactoring:
```
real    5m37,826s
user    77m12,075s
sys     6m20,547s

real    5m32,626s
user    76m51,143s
sys     6m24,511s
```

After refactoring:
```
real    5m18,509s
user    73m32,133s
sys     6m21,590s

real    5m14,466s
user    73m20,942s
sys     6m17,868s
```

~5% of improvement for compilation time. That's not huge, but that's
worth to get merged

There're several more refactorings TODO but better to do them later by
backports:
 - bitcoin/bitcoin#27636
 - bitcoin/bitcoin#26286
 - bitcoin/bitcoin#27238
 - and maybe this one: bitcoin/bitcoin#28200


## 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
 2023-11-17 10:04:18 -06:00
UdjinM6
b5d82832da
fix: should not notify about mnlist changes while ConnectBlock isn't done yet (#5711) 
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`ConnectBlock` can fail after `ProcessSpecialTxsInBlock`, we shouldn't
be notifying too early. Same for `DisconnectBlock` but that's less of an
issue imo.

## What was done?
Move notifications to the end of `ConnectBlock`/`DisconnectBlock`. There
is no `connman` in `CChainState` and I don't want to pass it in updates
struct so I changed `NotifyMasternodeListChanged` and used `connman`
from `CDSNotificationInterface` instead.

## How Has This Been Tested?
run unit test, run testnet qt wallet

## Breaking Changes

## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
 2023-11-16 12:36:46 -06:00
UdjinM6
c2db29439a
fix: rename SPORK_24_EHF to SPORK_24_TEST_EHF, make sure it has no effect on mainnet (#5691) 
## 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)_
 2023-11-13 10:03:46 -06:00
UdjinM6
704c594237
fix: some fixes for block payee validation and corresponding tests (#5684) 
## 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)_
 2023-11-13 10:02:52 -06:00
Odysseas Gabrielides
d5b2c260a4
test: ensure that mining is possible without CL info (#5689) 
## 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>
 2023-11-10 08:32:01 -06:00
Konstantin Akimov
216a5f7563
refactor: make MNActivationHeight in Params() indeed constant (#5658) 
## 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>
 2023-11-10 08:31:12 -06:00
Odysseas Gabrielides
c293593be2
test: v20 earlier activation for regtest (#5668) 
## 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)_
 2023-11-07 08:03:03 -06:00
UdjinM6
c61fe0aacd
fix: actually vote NO on triggers we don't like, some additional cleanups and tests (#5670) 
## 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)_
 2023-11-06 23:45:42 +03:00
Odysseas Gabrielides
a612b31aab
test: getblockchaininfo projected activation_height test (#5665) 
## 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>
 2023-11-06 13:32:05 -06:00
UdjinM6
66223aed51
fix: FundTransaction should follow the same bip69 rules CreateTransaction does (#5667) 
## 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)_
 2023-11-03 10:05:37 -05:00
UdjinM6
25ee1677ca
test: fix feature_governance.py (#5657) 
## 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)_
 2023-10-31 09:01:05 -05:00
fanquake
51ccdca24d Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#25803: refactor: Drop boost/algorithm/string/replace.hpp dependency 
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
 2023-10-31 08:40:25 -05:00
UdjinM6
965f5b2063
fix: adjust GetPaymentsLimit to work correctly with historical blocks, adjust sb params on regtest, tweak tests (#5641) 
## 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)_
 2023-10-30 18:12:07 +03:00
UdjinM6
fa19c5ffee
fix: adjust LLMQ_TEST_DIP0024 params, mine_cycle_quorum should use correct size (#5655) 
## 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)_
 2023-10-30 10:03:22 -05:00
UdjinM6
7d1e3d4d0d
fix: do not trim values in payment_amounts (#5647) 
## 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)_
 2023-10-27 19:59:44 -05:00
fanquake
6e7b402fe9 partial Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#27483: Bump python minimum version to 3.8 
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
 2023-10-23 10:48:39 -05:00
Konstantin Akimov
6b5b8973cc fix: missing changes from Merge #15404: [test] Remove -txindex to start nodes 2023-10-23 10:46:52 -05:00
fanquake
4cd51487c4 fix: missing changes from Merge #16917: tests: Move common function assert_approx() into util.py 
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
 2023-10-23 10:46:52 -05:00
UdjinM6
faba796c73
fix: actually show json for assetlock/unlock txes (#5633) 
## 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)_
 2023-10-23 10:36:50 -05:00
PastaPastaPasta
c51cec606d
refactor: add gsl::not_null to get compile time / run time pointer guarantees (#5595) 
## 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>
 2023-10-22 09:14:30 -05:00
Konstantin Akimov
63ed462c54
feat: auto generation EHF and spork+EHF activation for MN_RR (#5597) 
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>
 2023-10-17 22:31:40 -05:00
Odysseas Gabrielides
cecf63e0b7
feat!: exclude fees when calculating platformReward (#5612) 
## 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>
 2023-10-17 22:07:37 -05:00
Odysseas Gabrielides
848ed765e0
feat!: constant subsidy base for blocks in v20 (#5611) 
## 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)_
 2023-10-17 15:50:23 -05:00
Odysseas Gabrielides
5ca6382bfa
test: correct calculation of coinbasevalue in feature_asset_locks.py (#5603) 
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Fixed a problem forgotten in #5588 in feature_asset_locks.py.

## What was done?
Avoid floating operations when calculating `coinbasevalue`

## How Has This Been Tested?

## Breaking Changes

## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_

---------

Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
 2023-10-11 08:13:29 -05:00
UdjinM6
30f3f50928
fix: Let CDeterministicMN::ToJson() return correct collateralAddress for spent collaterals (#5607) 
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Historical masternode data returned via rpcs like `protx listdiff` can
be broken because some collaterals might be spent already and
`GetUTXOCoin` wasn't able to get any info.

## What was done?
Use `GetTransaction` as a fallback.

## 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)_
 2023-10-09 11:14:51 -05:00
UdjinM6
2004a855d9
fix!: avoid float calculations in PlatformShare (#5604) 
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
avoid potential discrepancies in block reward calculations

## What was done?
use integers (int64_t) only when dealing with block rewards, no
float/double

## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests

## Breaking Changes
might fork off on devnets that use previous version

## 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)_
 2023-10-09 09:15:23 -05:00
UdjinM6
4b046bb608 use deployment nStartTime as a signal expiration mark, adjust tests 
if a signal is mined prior to nStartTime then it means it was mined for one of the previous deployments with the same bit and we can ignore it
 2023-10-06 11:02:15 -05:00
Konstantin Akimov
d83dbd287a fix: fix previous commit with fixes 2023-10-06 11:02:15 -05:00
Konstantin Akimov
5e31bd5545 refactor: multiple fixes, cleanups, improvements and refactorings 2023-10-06 11:02:15 -05:00
Konstantin Akimov
92be5e0be7 fix: now EHF transactions expires after nExpiryEHF blocks 2023-10-06 11:02:15 -05:00
Konstantin Akimov
3973f2b925 feat: update functional tests for Mn EHF - to use same bit more than once 2023-10-06 11:02:15 -05:00
Konstantin Akimov
ef14b53b3d feat: add functional test for unknown and invalid version bits of EHF release 2023-10-06 11:02:15 -05:00
Konstantin Akimov
2c4597db9f feat: improve functional tests for MnEHF to check block reconsideration 2023-10-06 11:02:15 -05:00
Konstantin Akimov
b85a497cca feat: new functional test for feature MnEHF 2023-10-06 11:02:15 -05:00
Konstantin Akimov
33ab3187b2 feat: add CMNHFManager and logic to make hard-forks accordingly received signals 2023-10-06 11:02:15 -05:00
Konstantin Akimov
612faa8868 feat: imlemented new hard-fork mechanism that uses MN Activation Height 
Altough, it's still disabled because no calls of related methods after processing MnEHF tx
 2023-10-06 11:02:15 -05:00
UdjinM6
c814dcaaea
fix: Move CreditPoolDiff checks out of ProcessSpecialTxsInBlock, use correct block reward (#5594) 
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
The block reward calculation logic in `SetTarget` doesn't work on
superblocks.

## What was done?
Move `CreditPoolDiff` checks out of `ProcessSpecialTxsInBlock` to use
correct block reward.

## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests

## Breaking Changes
n/a, sb blocks should now be processed correctly, non-sb blocks
shouldn't be affected

## 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)_
 2023-10-04 12:47:21 -05:00
Odysseas Gabrielides
e72eb40024
feat!: Block Reward Reallocation (Doubling Treasury) (#5588) 
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Implementation of accepted proposal:
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/TREASURY-REALLOCATION-60-20-20

## What was done?
Once Masternode Reward Location Reallocation activates:
- Treasury is bumped to 20% of block subsidy.
- Block reward shares are immediately set to 75% for MN and 25% miners.
(Previous reallocation periods are dropped)
MN reward share should be 75% of block reward in order to represent 60%
of the block subsidy. (according to the proposal)
- `governancebudget` is returned from `getgovernanceinfo` RPC.

## How Has This Been Tested?
`block_reward_reallocation_tests`

## Breaking Changes


## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [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>
 2023-10-03 09:32:53 -05:00
PastaPastaPasta
7ca61abed0
refactor: remove some now unneeded cppcheck suppressions (#5589) 
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Unneeded suppressions were present

## What was done?
Removed them

## How Has This Been Tested?
Running linter

## 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)_
 2023-09-29 07:53:22 -05:00
Kittywhiskers Van Gogh
c3b4b6746a merge bitcoin#20966: save the banlist in a JSON format on disk 2023-09-24 09:50:50 -05:00
Kittywhiskers Van Gogh
5d7367e366 merge bitcoin#22050: remove tor v2 support 2023-09-24 09:50:50 -05:00
Kittywhiskers Van Gogh
4b29a74904 merge bitcoin#20852: allow CSubNet of non-IP networks 2023-09-24 09:50:50 -05:00
Konstantin Akimov
633cc3260f
feat: new rpc `gettxchainlocks' to get transaction statuses by batch (#5578) 
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Requested by @QuantumExplorer for platform needs

## What was done?
New rpc `gettransactionsarelocked` that returns list of txes.
it does less heavy calculations and transfer less data by gRPC.


## How Has This Been Tested?
```
$ src/dash-cli gettransactionsarelocked  '["e469de7994b9c1da8efd262fee8843efd7bdcab80c700dc1059c98b28f7c5c1b", "0d9fdf00c9568ff9103742b64e6b8287794633072f8824fa2c475f59e71dbace","0d3f48eebead54d640a7fc5692ddfcba619d8b49347d9a7c04586057c02dec9f"]'

[
  {
    "height": 907801,
    "chainlock": true
  },
  {
    "height": 101,
    "chainlock": true
  },
  {
    "height": -1,
    "chainlock": false
  }
]
```
Limiter tested by this call:
```
src/dash-cli gettransactionsarelocked  '["", "","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","",""]'  | wc
```

## 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: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
 2023-09-20 09:07:24 -05:00
merge-script
90285f5327 Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#22790: test: add aarch64-apple-darwin platform entry to get_previous_releases 
f6e4db27ceb67157dc13d13f34351cb87fec2be5 test: add aarch64-apple-darwin platform entry to get_previous_releases (Zero-1729)

Pull request description:

  Over the course of reviewing a PR, I had to edit `test/get_previous_releases.py` (after I ran `git clean -xdff`) to run the backwards compatibility tests (e.g. `wallet_upgradewallet`, `feature_backwards_compatibility`, etc.), as currently on master, running the script as indicated in [`test/README.md`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/test/README.md), for example, on an M1 machine results in the following error, as the `aarch64-apple-darwin*` platform entry is presently not recognised:

  > Output from an M1 machine running macOS v11.5.2

  ```sh
  $ test/get_previous_releases.py -b v0.20.1 v0.19.1 v0.18.1 v0.17.2 v0.16.3 v0.15.2
  Releases directory: releases
  Not sure which binary to download for aarch64-apple-darwin20.6.0
  ```

  As a quick fix, this PR adds the missing `aarch64-apple-darwin*` platform entry. Running the script now results in fetching the old binaries, as expected:

  ```sh
  $ test/get_previous_releases.py -b v0.20.1 v0.19.1 v0.18.1 v0.17.2 v0.16.3 v0.15.2

  Releases directory: releases
  Fetching: https://bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.20.1/bitcoin-0.20.1-osx64.tar.gz
    % Total    % Received % Xferd  Average Speed   Time    Time     Time  Current
                                   Dload  Upload   Total   Spent    Left  Speed
    0 20.9M    0     0    0     0      0      0 --:--:--  0:00:02 --:--:--     0
    % Total    % Received % Xferd  Average Speed   Time    Time     Time  Current
                                   Dload  Upload   Total   Spent    Left  Speed
  100 20.9M  100 20.9M    0     0   136k      0  0:02:37  0:02:37 --:--:-- 95607
  Checksum matched

  …

  Checksum matched
  ```

  After this patch, the backwards compatibility tests also run successfully, as expected.

  **Note**: I am open to other possible solutions.

  ---

  Steps to reproduce:

  > Ensure you take out the binaries in `releases` if they already exist.

  Try running `test/get_previous_releases.py -b v0.15.2` or similar to fetch the old release binaries.

Top commit has no ACKs.

Tree-SHA512: a238d909b70a61be622234bc49b05d2e91a8acfc5ea348d29f2c8a927fb793cb97365e558571e3f46d6a5650c4f3c6e28fa126c6e56b38e1eb98f7c3e3594d0f
 2023-09-19 08:54:12 -05:00
Konstantin Akimov
f878b281ba fix: fillow-up Merge #18774: test: added test for upgradewallet RPC 
- partial dashification
 - disabling this test so far as it does not work anyway
 2023-09-19 08:54:12 -05:00
Konstantin Akimov
fab1031a70 fix: missing changes from Merge #18873: Fix intermittent sync_blocks failures 2023-09-19 08:54:12 -05:00
Sjors Provoost
fe1e8c2d13 fix: missing changes from Merge #18067: wallet: Improve LegacyScriptPubKeyMan::CanProvide script recognition 
[test] check for addmultisigaddress regression
 2023-09-19 08:54:12 -05:00
Konstantin Akimov
08a37a3c8c fix: missing changes from bitcoin#20034 test: Get rid of default wallet hacks 2023-09-19 08:54:12 -05:00
Konstantin Akimov
f093c9478c fix: dashification of of hashsums in get_previous_releases.py 2023-09-19 08:54:12 -05:00
Konstantin Akimov
8a9712e75b fix: dashification of test/get_previous_releases.py 2023-09-19 08:54:12 -05:00
MarcoFalke
a3684885e9 partial Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#20354: test: Add feature_taproot.py --previous_release 
fa80e10d94dbf86da84fc761b09fb631155a5b25 test: Add feature_taproot.py --previous_release (MarcoFalke)
85ccffa26686c6c9adbd18bdde37fc1747281bab test: move releases download incantation to README (Sjors Provoost)
29d6b1da2a862bfbb14e7821979c97416c5400e8 test: previous releases: add v0.20.1 (Sjors Provoost)

Pull request description:

  Disabling the new consensus code at runtime is fine, but potentially fragile and incomplete. Fix that by giving the option to run with a version that has been compiled without any taproot code.

ACKs for top commit:
  Sjors:
    tACK fa80e10
  NelsonGaldeman:
    tACK fa80e10d94dbf86da84fc761b09fb631155a5b25

Tree-SHA512: 1a1feef823f08c05268759645a8974e1b2d39a024258f5e6acecbe25097aae3fa9302c27262978b40f1aa8e7b525b60c0047199010f2a5d6017dd6434b4066f0
 2023-09-19 08:54:12 -05:00
MarcoFalke
67481eeb69 Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#22442: util: improves error messages on get_previous_releases script 
179a051704321ba40277a5855d6ac0dbb45689dd util: improves error messages on get_previous_releases script (Nelson Galdeman)

Pull request description:

  When previous releases are fetched and the specified version wasn't added to the checksum list we used to get a "Checksum did not match" which isn't true (https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/issues/753#issuecomment-879546719).

  If the specified version number is not on the list, it now logs cannot do the comparison instead.

ACKs for top commit:
  practicalswift:
    cr ACK 179a051704321ba40277a5855d6ac0dbb45689dd
  theStack:
    tACK 179a051704321ba40277a5855d6ac0dbb45689dd, tested on Debian bullseye/sid

Tree-SHA512: 2a07ce75232f853fd311c43581f8faf12d423668946ae6ad784feece5b4d0edd57fc018ba1f0c5a73bfaccb326e0df9a643580d16bf427c1ec3ff34a9cdbc80c
 2023-09-19 08:54:12 -05:00
Wladimir J. van der Laan
9cbe0de929 Merge #20955: test: Fix get_previous_releases.py for aarch64 
fa1d5e51374bce9607b429836bbd3fe059e3c78c test: Fix get_previous_releases.py for aarch64 (MarcoFalke)

Pull request description:

  Otherwise it will fail with "Not sure which binary to download..."

ACKs for top commit:
  laanwj:
    Code review ACK fa1d5e51374bce9607b429836bbd3fe059e3c78c

Tree-SHA512: 0db71e898a431665757ce835016a4e05c629a95abc4a2951eac9bd9b5876ec3dc3d6f156d58565e2bcdf918cde4f2649183d4a58038ac13c705a7e914c0094d1
 2023-09-19 08:54:12 -05:00
Wladimir J. van der Laan
b68936f8a8 Merge #19859: qa: Fixes failing functional test by changing version 
6de942908726480fb2919ed1f1b7906a63ec576d qa: Changes v0.17.1 to v0.17.2 (nthumann)

Pull request description:

  As of 0374e821bd v0.17.2 is downloaded instead of v0.17.1 for functional testing. This causes `test/functional/feature_backwards_compatibility.py` to fail, because it [requires](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/test/functional/feature_backwards_compatibility.py#L57) v0.17.1.

  Steps to reproduce:
  Run `test/get_previous_releases.py -b v0.19.1 v0.18.1 v0.17.1 v0.16.3 v0.15.2`. It cannot be downloaded at all because the sha256sum is missing [here](c1e0c2ad3b/test/get_previous_releases.py (L23)).
  Or adjust the command and run `test/get_previous_releases.py -b v0.19.1 v0.18.1 v0.17.2 v0.16.3 v0.15.2`, then run `test/functional/test_runner.py feature_backwards_compatibility`. It´ll fail because the test is missing v0.17.1.

  This PR changes v0.17.1 to v0.17.2 in this test and in a few comments.

ACKs for top commit:
  laanwj:
    ACK 6de942908726480fb2919ed1f1b7906a63ec576d
  fanquake:
    ACK 6de942908726480fb2919ed1f1b7906a63ec576d - looks correct. Surprised this wasn't caught/part of #19813. In future you could add any explanations & extra info as part of your commit message as well (even though PR descriptions are included as part of the merge).

Tree-SHA512: bbe50c4fd5c1aedd6dc1cdc3d93ef9005db1c67adca3f263b6b0d869c40b495a3221e706c9389fedea4748e31911dbd591062f60ce9836e58099fbdd9515b4d9
 2023-09-19 08:54:12 -05:00
MarcoFalke
da35562fa1 Merge #19813: util, ci: Hard code previous release tarball checksums 
0374e821bd9e9498ce9c03aa8e5435870019978b util: Hard code previous release tarball checksums (Hennadii Stepanov)
bd897ce79f72a44a2e609f95433e251a3fd9eb9c scripted-diff: Move previous_release.py to test/get_previous_releases.py (Hennadii Stepanov)

Pull request description:

  #19205 introduced signature verifying for the downloaded `SHA256SUMS.asc`.
  This approach is brittle and does not work in CI environment for many reasons:
  - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19812#issuecomment-680760663
  - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19013#discussion_r459590779

  This PR:
  - implements **Sjors**' [idea](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19205#pullrequestreview-426080048):
  > Alternatively we might as well hard code the checksum for each `tar.gz` release in the source code, here.

  - is an alternative to 5a2c31e528e6bd60635096f233252f3c717f366d (#19013)

  - fixes #19812

  - updates v0.17.1 to v0.17.2

ACKs for top commit:
  MarcoFalke:
    cr ACK 0374e821bd9e9498ce9c03aa8e5435870019978b
  Sjors:
    tACK 0374e821bd9e9498ce9c03aa8e5435870019978b

Tree-SHA512: cacdcf9f5209eae7da357abb3445585ad2f980920fd5bf75527ce89974d3f531a4cf8b5b35edfc116b23bfdfb45c0437cb14cbc416d76ed2dc5b9e6d33cdad71
 2023-09-19 08:54:12 -05:00
MarcoFalke
7c43fa5426 Merge #19205: script: previous_release.sh rewritten in python 
9c34aff39309b8adc99d347e07b6ddb5366498e9 Remove previous_release.sh (Brian Liotti)
e1e5960e10a9329d9f55a3967d546ffbdd896030 script: Add previous_release.py (Brian Liotti)

Pull request description:

  Closes #18132

  Added functionality:
  1) checks file hash before untarring when using the binary download option

ACKs for top commit:
  fjahr:
    re-ACK 9c34aff39309b8adc99d347e07b6ddb5366498e9
  Sjors:
    tACK 9c34aff39309b8adc99d347e07b6ddb5366498e9

Tree-SHA512: 323f11828736a372a47f048592de8b027ddcd75b38f312dfc73f7b495d1e078bfeb384d9cdf434b3e70f2c6c0ce2da2df48e9a6460ac0e1967c6829a411c52d5
 2023-09-19 08:54:12 -05:00
Konstantin Akimov
7ddcf4a282 Merge #18864: Add v0.16.3 backwards compatibility test, bump v0.19.0.1 to v0.19.1 
d135c294764add81683ba47575f9a5dde7d7c07f [ci] make list of previous releases to download a setting (Sjors Provoost)
9c246b873c74834a121edba00fcaecf0cba6f9b4 [test] backwards compatibility: bump v0.19.0.1 to v0.19.1 (Sjors Provoost)
89a28e02fa46f3d5eb07ab02aa34aa95c6fcee11 [test] add v0.16.3 backwards compatibility test (Sjors Provoost)

Pull request description:

  Thanks to #18774's `adjust_bitcoin_conf_for_pre_17` we can now test backwards compatibility for v0.16.3, both for sync and loading a recent wallet.

  This PR bumps v0.19.0.1 to v0.19.1.

  I also made the version list consistent for the `contrib/devtools/previous_release.sh` instruction, between both tests.

ACKs for top commit:
  MarcoFalke:
    ACK d135c294764add81683ba47575f9a5dde7d7c07f

Tree-SHA512: 5ff137a7a934237fa220f1c2807ce9abeeb75929266558bf3e4045bec7dfcd0a8747fa74d700065c568330b18badf58c60c308eb13d1eed444d4bbfe6decc48b
 2023-09-19 08:54:12 -05:00
MarcoFalke
f68d12703d Merge #19153: test: mempool compatibility test 
16d4b3fd6d5aad18ebb731a5006a15180d3661ef test: mempool.dat compatibility between versions (Ivan Metlushko)

Pull request description:

  Rationale: Verify mempool.dat compatibility between versions

  The format of mempool.dat has been changed in #18038
  The tests verifies the fix made in #18807 and ensures that the file format is compatible between current version and v0.19.1
  The test verifies both backward and forward compatibility.

  This PR also adds a log when we fail to add a tx loaded from mempool.dat.
  It was useful when debugging this test and could be potentially useful to debug other scenarios as well.

  Closes #19037

ACKs for top commit:
  Sjors:
    tACK 16d4b3fd6d5aad18ebb731a5006a15180d3661ef

Tree-SHA512: 00a38bf528c6478cb0da467af216488f83c1e3ca4d9166c109202ea8284023e99d87a3d6e252c4d88d08d9b5ed1a730b3e1970d6e5c0aef526fa7ced40de7490
 2023-09-19 08:54:12 -05:00
MarcoFalke
a5cb668b83 Merge #18828: test: Strip down previous releases boilerplate 
fa359d14c09c6b139dead5da17c5a1c02f68393c test: Strip down previous releases boilerplate (MarcoFalke)

Pull request description:

  Reduces code bloat and mental load to write compatibility tests

ACKs for top commit:
  Sjors:
    tACK fa359d14c09c6b139dead5da17c5a1c02f68393c on macOS

Tree-SHA512: dc66286b24b2f137e5bca99412850ec7eee8cc61cf9cdc7ab532d529220808189baea8d1b077f8b7f40d3e8881d981e1ffc5a877adb394816f1225b1186253e4
 2023-09-19 08:54:12 -05:00
MarcoFalke
04cc0ac58f Merge #18534: test: skip backwards compat tests if not compiled with wallet 
c0c43ae1471347ea93614e9a25989f13b021f8a8 test: skip backwards compat tests if not compiled with wallet (fanquake)

Pull request description:

Top commit has no ACKs.

Tree-SHA512: d9975a1490e69134408b6b724cea26a6c1397d43f59850283b9e338ae38e00fefbcd868fb141e0a4bb55f02076690a99331f29cfa2d0fa66c165032b24a94081
 2023-09-19 08:54:12 -05:00
MarcoFalke
207b1c5877 Merge #12134: Build previous releases and run functional tests 
c456145b2c65f580683df03bf10cd39000cf24d5 [test] add 0.19 backwards compatibility tests (Sjors Provoost)
b769cd142deda74fe46e231cc7b687a86514f2f1 [test] add v0.17.1 wallet upgrade test (Sjors Provoost)
9d9390dab716f07057c94e8e21f3c7dd06192f35 [tests] add wallet backwards compatility tests (Sjors Provoost)
c7ca6308968b29a0e0edc485cd06e68e5edb7c7d [scripts] support release candidates of earlier releases (Sjors Provoost)
8b1460dbd1b732f06d4cebe1fa6844286c7a0056 [tests] check v0.17.1 and v0.18.1 backwards compatibility (Sjors Provoost)
ae379cf7d12943fc192d58176673bcfe7d53da53 [scripts] build earlier releases (Sjors Provoost)

Pull request description:

  This PR adds binaries for 0.17, 0.18 and 0.19 to Travis and runs a basic block propagation test.

  Includes test for upgrading v0.17.1 wallets and opening master wallets with older versions.

  Usage:

  ```sh
  contrib/devtools/previous_release.sh -f -b v0.19.0.1 v0.18.1 v0.17.1
  test/functional/backwards_compatibility.py
  ```

  Travis caches these earlier releases, so it should be able to run these tests with little performance impact.

  Additional scenarios where it might be useful to run tests against earlier releases:

  * creating a wallet with #11403's segwit implementation, copying it to an older node and making sure the user didn't lose any funds (although this PR doesn't support `v0.15.1`)
  * future consensus changes
  * P2P changes (e.g. to make sure we don't accidentally ban old nodes)

ACKs for top commit:
  MarcoFalke:
    ACK c456145b2c65f580683df03bf10cd39000cf24d5 🔨

Tree-SHA512: 360bd870603f95b14dc0cd629532cc147344f632b808617c18e1b585dfb1f082b401e5d493a48196b719e0aeaee533ae0a773dfc9f217f704aae898576c19232
 2023-09-19 08:54:12 -05:00
Kittywhiskers Van Gogh
41a6613fba
refactor: subsume CoinJoin objects under CJContext, deglobalize coinJoin{ClientQueueManager,Server} (#5337) 
## Motivation

CoinJoin's subsystems are initialized by variables and managers that
occupy the global context. The _extent_ to which these subsystems
entrench themselves into the codebase is difficult to assess and moving
them out of the global context forces us to enumerate the subsystems in
the codebase that rely on CoinJoin logic and enumerate the order in
which components are initialized and destroyed.

Keeping this in mind, the scope of this pull request aims to:

* Reduce the amount of CoinJoin-specific entities present in the global
scope
* Make the remaining usage of these entities in the global scope
explicit and easily searchable

## Additional Information

* The initialization of `CCoinJoinClientQueueManager` is dependent on
blocks-only mode being disabled (which can be alternatively interpreted
as enabling the relay of transactions). The same applies to
`CBlockPolicyEstimator`, which `CCoinJoinClientQueueManager` depends.

Therefore, `CCoinJoinClientQueueManager` is only initialized if
transaction relaying is enabled and so is its scheduled maintenance
task. This can be found by looking at `init.cpp`
[here](93f8df1c31/src/init.cpp (L1681-L1683)),
[here](93f8df1c31/src/init.cpp (L2253-L2255))
and
[here](93f8df1c31/src/init.cpp (L2326-L2327)).
  
For this reason, `CBlockPolicyEstimator` is not a member of `CJContext`
and its usage is fulfilled by passing it as a reference when
initializing the scheduling task.

* `CJClientManager` has not used `CConnman` or `CTxMemPool` as `const`
as existing code that is outside the scope of this PR would cast away
constness, which would be unacceptable. Furthermore, some logical paths
are taken that will grind to a halt if they are stored as `const`.

  Examples of such a call chains would be:

* `CJClientManager::DoMaintenance >
CCoinJoinClientManager::DoMaintenance > DoAutomaticDenominating >
CCoinJoinClientSession::DoAutomaticDenominating >
CCoinJoinClientSession::StartNewQueue > CConnman::AddPendingMasternode`
which modifies `CConnman::vPendingMasternodes`, which is non-const
behaviour

* `CJClientManager::DoMaintenance >
CCoinJoinClientManager::DoMaintenance > DoAutomaticDenominating >
CCoinJoin::IsCollateralValid > AcceptToMemoryPool` which adds a
transaction to the memory pool, which is non-const behaviour

* There were cppcheck [linter
failures](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5337#issuecomment-1685084688)
that seemed to be caused by the usage of `Assert` in
`coinjoin/client.h`. This seems to be resolved by backporting
[bitcoin#24714](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24714). (Thanks
@knst!)
    * Depends on #5546

---------

Co-authored-by: Kittywhiskers Van Gogh <63189531+kittywhiskers@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
 2023-09-13 12:52:38 -05:00
UdjinM6
be7dcd4281 get rid of magic 2299859813 in feature_asset_locks.py 2023-09-05 11:25:28 -05:00
Konstantin Akimov
c5d11a241b feat: use getblockcount() instead of over-complex node.getblock(node.getbestblockhash())["height"] 2023-09-05 11:25:28 -05:00
Konstantin Akimov
bdd38adc3f fix: change reward: 37.5% reward of masternodes are on platform now 2023-09-05 11:25:28 -05:00
Konstantin Akimov
5583890689 feat: masternode payment reallocation from coin base to platform 
Move funds from the coinbase, into the Asset Lock Pool. This is to incentivize MNs to upgrade to platform, because only MNs running platform will get these migrated rewards
 2023-09-05 11:25:28 -05:00
UdjinM6
baa28b9854
fix: Only approve triggers that match our expectations (#5565) 
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
#5564 is a bit too optimistic about incoming triggers

## What was done?
Rework governance logic to only approve triggers that match our
expectations i.e. have the same data hash as our own trigger would have
if we would have to submit it.

## How Has This Been Tested?
Run tests

## Breaking Changes
Voting is done in `CreateGovernanceTrigger` only now meaning that it
only happens on next block for incoming triggers. Tweaked tests
accordingly.

## 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)_
 2023-09-05 10:04:21 -05:00
Kittywhiskers Van Gogh
8c742e9d15 merge bitcoin#23756: Fix implicit integer sign changes in strencodings 2023-09-04 20:50:27 -05:00
Kittywhiskers Van Gogh
1cf996ac8c merge bitcoin#21059: Drop boost/preprocessor dependencies 2023-09-04 20:50:27 -05:00
Odysseas Gabrielides
d080b4cc38
fix: vote funding yes when receiving triggers if hasn't created own trigger (#5564) 
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
In case MNs didn't submit their own trigger, should vote for funding yes
when receiving triggers from other nodes.

## What was done?
Check if already submitted theirs and vote accordingly. 

## How Has This Been Tested?


## Breaking Changes


## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
 2023-09-04 13:29:44 -05:00
Konstantin Akimov
ba68ea50f9
feat: various Asset Locks improvement (#5527) 
## What was done?
 - remove dependency of Asset Lock txes on CCreditPool
- new case for functional tests of Asset Locks - more than one output
for Asset Lock tx.


## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests

## Breaking Changes
Slightly changes behaviour of TxMempool. Tx can be accepted in mempool
even if Asset Unlock transaction with same index is already mined. But
final consensus rules are same.


## 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
 2023-08-31 12:28:17 -05:00
MarcoFalke
c4234a5e78 Merge #18451: test: shift coverage from getunconfirmedbalance to getbalances 
0306d78cb49d1684cc96ba3512b582a1fdaf78cc Use getbalances in wallet_address_types tests (Jon Atack)
7eacdc5167c8db94df84e206db85817bc64e4921 Shift coverage from getunconfirmedbalance to getbalances in wallet_abandonconflict tests (Jon Atack)
3e6f7377f600e47e5e3d439fc5d6ccf3db210038 Improve getbalances coverage in wallet_balance tests (Jon Atack)

Pull request description:

  <strike>This PR updates several tests and then removes the `getunconfirmedbalance` RPC which was deprecated in facfb4111d14a3b06c46690a2cca7ca91cea8a96 a year ago.

  Next steps: remove the deprecated `getwalletinfo` fields and the `getbalance` RPC in follow-ups, if there seems to be consensus on those removals.</strike>

  Update:

  `getunconfirmedbalance` RPC was deprecated in facfb4111d14a3b06c46690a2cca7ca91cea8a96 a year ago, but following the review comments below, this PR now only updates the test coverage to use `getbalances` while still leaving basic coverage for `getunconfirmedbalance` in wallet_balance.py.

  That said, I've seen 3 regular contributors confused in the past 10 days by "DEPRECATED" warnings in the code that are not following the deprecation policy in [JSON-RPC-interface.md#versioning](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/JSON-RPC-interface.md#versioning).

  ISTM these warnings should either be removed, or the calls deprecated (`-deprecatedrpc`), or the policy updated to describe these warnings as a pre-deprecation practice.

ACKs for top commit:
  jnewbery:
    utACK 0306d78cb

Tree-SHA512: 692e43e9bed5afa97d905740666e365f0b64e559e1c75a6a398236d9e943894e3477947fc11324f420a6feaffa0c0c1532aa983c50090ca39d06551399e6ddd1
 2023-08-29 22:00:59 -05:00