## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
fix buid errors like https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/jobs/4933232262
## What was done?
reorder initializations
## How Has This Been Tested?
local build with `-werror`
## 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
## What was done?
Renaming of all classes/variables/functions/rpcs from `hpmn` to `evo`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
All unit and func tests are passing.
Sync of Testnet.
## Breaking Changes
All protx RPCs ending with `_hpmn` were converted to `_evo`.
`_hpmn` RPCs are now deprecated.
Although, they can still be enabled by adding `-deprecatedrpc=hpmn`.
## 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
- [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: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Since v19, Evo nodes are paid 4x blocks in a row.
This needs to be reverted when MN Reward Reallocation activates.
## What was done?
Starting from MN Reward Reallocation activation, Evo nodes are paid one
block in a row (like regular masternodes).
In addition, `nConsecutivePayments` isn't incremented anymore for Evo
nodes.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_llmq_hpmn.py` with MN Reward Reallocation activation.
## Breaking Changes
no
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: Konstantin Akimov <knstqq@gmail.com>
LLMQContext uses RAII to initialize all members. Ensured that all
members always initialized correctly in proper order if LLMQContext
exists.
BlockAssembler, CChainState use too many agruments and they are making
wrong assumption that members of LLMQContext can be constructed and used
independently, but that's not true. Instead, let's pass LLMQContext
whenever possible.
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
https://github.com/dashpay/dash-issues/issues/52
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional test and introduce no breaking changes.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
V19 is active on mainnet/testnet now, no need to check activation bits
anymore. This PR also bumps `MinBIP9WarningHeight` to
post-v19-activation height which should stop `unknown new rules
activated (versionbit 8)` warning from appearing.
## What was done?
Bury v19, bump `MinBIP9WarningHeight`
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run tests, reindex on mainnet/testnet.
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
It splits from https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5150/ by
@PastaPastaPasta request.
## What was done?
See commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Many usages of `CBLS{Signature,PrivateKey,PublicKey}` assume using
global variable, even if can be specified explicitly.
Some of these usages have been deglobalized in this PR.
Some prior improvements and fixes are here:
[#5403](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5403)
## What was done?
- Refactored the uses of global variable of `bls_legacy_scheme` from
`SetHex`, `SetByteVector`, some rpc calls.
- Removed flag `checkMalleable` to simplify code because it's always
`true`.
- Removed dependency from `txmempool.h` on `bls.h` to speed up
compilation.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests.
## Breaking Changes
No breaking changes assumed. But in theory behaviour of some RPC can be
more explicit and predictable.
## 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
Disabled or non-enforced Chainlocks does not mean you can safely mine
non-locked txes, you could end up mining a block that is going to be
rejected by everyone else if a conflicting tx (missing on your node)
would be IS-locked. I can't find any reason why we have this besides "if
Chainlocks are disabled then smth is wrong so let them all be mined" but
we have spork_2 and spork_3 to control IS behaviour and we check them in
`IsTxSafeForMining` already, that would be a much more straightforward
way to deal with a potential issue.
Noticed this while reviewing #5150 and also while testing v19.2 during
recent testnet v19 re-fork.
## What was done?
Drop this check, adjust tests
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run tests locally
## Breaking Changes
Not quote breaking changes but a change in behaviour: with CLs disabled
it will now take 10 minutes for non-locked txes to be mined, same as
when CLs are enabled.
## 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
Some conditions won't trigger when reorging exactly from the forkpoint
## What was done?
pls see individual commits, tl;dr: you can't get correct results with
`GetAncestor` cause the answer is in the future
## How Has This Been Tested?
reorg to 850000 and back on testnet
```
invalidateblock 0000003eddb94218e7a3f41b2ac6e26143f8a748b50cd26e86bdbbab9ebe50aa
reconsiderblock 0000003eddb94218e7a3f41b2ac6e26143f8a748b50cd26e86bdbbab9ebe50aa
```
this fails on develop and work with this patch
## 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
same as #5392, alternative solution
~based on #5402 atm, will rebase later~
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
reorg mainnet around forkpoint with a patched client (to allow low
difficulty), run tests
## Breaking Changes
Another evodb migration is required. Going back to an older version or
migrating after the fork requires reindexing.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Many objects created and functions called by passing `const
std::unique_ptr<Obj>& obj` instead directly passing `Obj& obj`
In some cases it is indeed needed, but in most cases it is just extra
complexity that is better to avoid.
Motivation:
- providing reference to object instead `unique_ptr` is giving warranty
that there's no `nullptr` and no need to keep it in mind
- value inside unique_ptr by reference can be changed externally and
instead `nullptr` it can turn to real object later (or in opposite)
- code is shorter but cleaner
Based on that this refactoring is useful as it reduces mental load when
reading or writing code.
`std::unique` should be used ONLY for owning object, but not for passing
it everywhere.
## What was done?
Replaced most of usages `std::unique_ptr<Obj>& obj` to `Obj& obj`.
Btw, in several cases implementation assumes that object can be nullptr
and replacement to reference is not possible.
Even using raw pointer is not possible, because the empty
std::unique_ptr can be initialized later somewhere in code.
For example, in `src/init.cpp` there's called `PeerManager::make` and
pass unique_ptr to the `node.llmq_ctx` that would be initialized way
later.
That is out of scope this PR.
List of cases, where reference to `std::unique_ptr` stayed as they are:
- `std::unique_ptr<LLMQContext>& llmq_ctx` in `PeerManagerImpl`,
`PeerManager` and `CDSNotificationInterface`
- `std::unique_ptr<CDeterministicMNManager>& dmnman` in
`CDSNotificationInterface`
Also `CChainState` have 3 references to `unique_ptr` that can't be
replaced too:
- `std::unique_ptr<llmq::CChainLocksHandler>& m_clhandler;`
- `std::unique_ptr<llmq::CInstantSendManager>& m_isman;`
- `std::unique_ptr<llmq::CQuorumBlockProcessor>&
m_quorum_block_processor;`
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests.
## Breaking Changes
No breaking changes, all of these changes - are internal APIs for Dash
Core developers only.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently, Chainlocks are either enabled or disabled. This PR adds a
third state: enabled but we will not sign new ones.
Should probably backport this to v19.x
## What was done?
Spork state != 0 but active will now result in chain locks being
enforced but not created.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
None
## 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)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
10efc0487c442bccb0e4a9ac29452af1592a3cf2 Templatize ValidationState instead of subclassing (Jeffrey Czyz)
10e85d4adc9b7dbbda63e00195e0a962f51e4d2c Remove ValidationState's constructor (Jeffrey Czyz)
0aed17ef2892478c28cd660e53223c6dd1dc0187 Refactor FormatStateMessage into ValidationState (Jeffrey Czyz)
Pull request description:
This removes boilerplate code in the subclasses which otherwise only
differ by the result type.
The subclassing was introduced in a27a295.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK 10efc0487c442bccb0e4a9ac29452af1592a3cf2 🐱
ajtowns:
ACK 10efc0487c442bccb0e4a9ac29452af1592a3cf2 -- looks good to me
jonatack:
ACK 10efc048 code review, build/tests green, nice cleanup
Tree-SHA512: 765dd52dde7d49b9a5c6d99d97c96f4492673e2aed0b0604faa88db0308fa4500a26bf755cca0b896be283874096c215932e1110a2d01dc012cd36a5fce58a42
e09c701e0110350f78366fb837308c086b6503c0 scripted-diff: Bump copyright of files changed in 2020 (MarcoFalke)
6cbe6209646db8914b87bf6edbc18c6031a16f1e scripted-diff: Replace CCriticalSection with RecursiveMutex (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
`RecursiveMutex` better clarifies that the mutex is recursive, see also the standard library naming: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/recursive_mutex
For that reason, and to avoid different people asking me the same question repeatedly (e.g. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15932#pullrequestreview-339175124 ), remove the outdated alias `CCriticalSection` with a scripted-diff
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
We use `pQuorumBaseBlockIndex` name when we shouldn't and we don't check
that quorum types and block indexes provided as input params in llmq
utils satisfy our requirements. This is kind of ok-ish as long as we use
these functions appropriately but it's better to make things clearer and
to have actual checks imo.
noticed this while reviewing #5366
## What was done?
Rename `pQuorumBaseBlockIndex` to `pCycleQuorumBaseBlockIndex`/`pindex`
in a few places. Check that quorum types and block indexes have expected
values.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests locally
## 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
Implementation of Randomness Beacon Part 2.
This PR is the next step of #5262.
Starting from v20 activation fork, members for quorums are sorted using
(if available) the best CL signature found in Coinbase.
If no CL signature is present yet, then the usual way is used (By using
Blockhash instead)
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
Test `feature_llmq_rotation.py` was updated to cover both rotated and
non-rotated quorums.
2 quorums are mined first to ensure Chainlock are working earlier.
Then dip_24 activation is replaced by v20 activation.
The only direct way to test this change is to make sure that all
expected quorums after v20 activation are properly formed.
Note: A `wait_for_chainlocked_block_all_nodes` is called between every
rotation cycle to ensure that Coinbase will use a different Chainlock
signature.
## Breaking Changes
Yes, quorum members will be calculated differently.
## 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>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
We had forgotten to harden dip20 and dip24 activation
## What was done?
Hardened dip20 and dip24 activation
## How Has This Been Tested?
Hasn't yet; should do an assumevalid=0 reindex
## Breaking Changes
Hopefully none
## 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
- [ ] 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
`cs_map_quorums` was introduced to protect `mapQuorumsCache` only. We
shouldn't hold it for too long or require it to be held in
`BuildQuorumFromCommitment`.
## What was done?
limit the scope of `cs_map_quorums`
## How Has This Been Tested?
build and run tests locally and in gitlab ci
## 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
## What was done?
- Bumped version of `CbTx`. Added fields `bestCLHeightDiff`,
`bestCLSignature`
- Miner starting from v20 fork, includes best CL signature in `CbTx` (if
available) or null signature.
- All nodes should verify included CL signature before accepting the
block.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Basically, activated v20 on in the beginning of
`feature_llmq_chainlocks.py`
## Breaking Changes
Yes, new version of CbTx
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Invalid number of minimum members in comments for LLMQ_25_67
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Invalid number of minimum members in comments for LLMQ_25_67
## What was done?
- Replaced `67` with `17`
## How Has This Been Tested?
None
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
This refactoring is a follow-up changes to backport bitcoin#17164 (PR
#5314)
These changes are reduce difference in implementation for our code and
bitcoin's
## What was done?
Removed a flag m_block_relay_peer. Instead I call IsAddrRelayPeer() that
has same information now.
It changes logic introduced in #4888 due to dash-specific code.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests.
## Breaking Changes
No 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
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
3004d5a12d09d94bfc4dee2a8e8f2291996a4aaf [validation] Remove fMissingInputs from AcceptToMemoryPool() (John Newbery)
c428622a5bb1e37b2e6ab2c52791ac05d9271238 [validation] Remove unused first_invalid parameter from ProcessNewBlockHeaders() (John Newbery)
7204c6434b944f6ad51b3c895837729d3aa56eea [validation] Remove useless ret parameter from Invalid() (John Newbery)
1a37de4b3174d19a6d8691ae07e92b32fdfaef11 [validation] Remove error() calls from Invalid() calls (John Newbery)
067981e49246822421a7bcc720491427e1dba8a3 [validation] Tidy Up ValidationResult class (John Newbery)
a27a2957ed9afbe5a96caa5f0f4cbec730d27460 [validation] Add CValidationState subclasses (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
Carries out some remaining tidy-ups remaining after PR 15141:
- split ValidationState into TxValidationState and BlockValidationState (commit from ajtowns)
- various minor code style tidy-ups to the ValidationState class
- remove the useless `ret` parameter from `ValidationState::Invalid()`
- remove the now unused `first_invalid` parameter from `ProcessNewBlockHeaders()`
- remove the `fMissingInputs` parameter from `AcceptToMemoryPool()`, and deal with missing inputs the same way as other errors by using the `TxValidationState` object.
Tip for reviewers (thanks ryanofsky!): The first commit ("[validation] Add CValidationState subclasses" ) is huge and can be easier to start reviewing if you revert the rote, mechanical changes:
Substitute the commit hash of commit "[validation] Add CValidationState subclasses" for <CommitHash> in the commands below.
```sh
git checkout <CommitHash>
git grep -l ValidationState | xargs sed -i 's/BlockValidationState\|TxValidationState/CValidationState/g'
git grep -l ValidationResult | xargs sed -i 's/BlockValidationResult\|TxValidationResult/ValidationInvalidReason/g'
git grep -l MaybePunish | xargs sed -i 's/MaybePunishNode\(ForBlock\|ForTx\)/MaybePunishNode/g'
git diff HEAD^
```
After that it's possible to easily see the mechanical changes with:
```sh
git log -p -n1 -U0 --word-diff-regex=. <CommitHash>
```
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK 3004d5a12d09d94bfc4dee2a8e8f2291996a4aaf
amitiuttarwar:
code review ACK 3004d5a12d09d94bfc4dee2a8e8f2291996a4aaf. Also built & ran tests locally.
fjahr:
Code review ACK 3004d5a12d09d94bfc4dee2a8e8f2291996a4aaf . Only nit style change and pure virtual destructor added since my last review.
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 3004d5a12d09d94bfc4dee2a8e8f2291996a4aaf. Just whitespace change and pure virtual destructor added since last review.
Tree-SHA512: 511de1fb380a18bec1944ea82b513b6192df632ee08bb16344a2df3c40811a88f3872f04df24bc93a41643c96c48f376a04551840fd804a961490d6c702c3d36
9075d13153ce06cd59a45644831ecc43126e1e82 [docs] Add release notes for removal of REJECT reasons (John Newbery)
04a2f326ec0f06fb4fce1c4f93500752f05dede8 [validation] Fix REJECT message comments (John Newbery)
e9d5a59e34ff2d538d8f5315efd9908bf24d0fdc [validation] Remove REJECT code from CValidationState (John Newbery)
0053e16714323c1694c834fdca74f064a1a33529 [logging] Don't log REJECT code when transaction is rejected (John Newbery)
a1a07cfe99fc8cee30ba5976dc36b47b1f6532ab [validation] Fix peer punishment for bad blocks (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
We no longer send BIP 61 REJECT messages, so there's no need to set
a REJECT code in the CValidationState object.
Note that there is a minor bug fix in p2p behaviour here. Because the
call to `MaybePunishNode()` in `PeerLogicValidation::BlockChecked()` only
previously happened if the REJECT code was > 0 and < `REJECT_INTERNAL`,
then there are cases were `MaybePunishNode()` can get called where it
wasn't previously:
- when `AcceptBlockHeader()` fails with `CACHED_INVALID`.
- when `AcceptBlockHeader()` fails with `BLOCK_MISSING_PREV`.
Note that `BlockChecked()` cannot fail with an 'internal' reject code. The
only internal reject code was `REJECT_HIGHFEE`, which was only set in
ATMP.
This reverts a minor bug introduced in 5d08c9c579.
ACKs for top commit:
ariard:
ACK 9075d13, changes since last reviewed are splitting them in separate commits to ease understanding and fix nits
fjahr:
ACK 9075d13153ce06cd59a45644831ecc43126e1e82, confirmed diff to last review was fixing nits in docs/comments.
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 9075d13153ce06cd59a45644831ecc43126e1e82. Only changes since last review are splitting the main commit and updating comments
Tree-SHA512: 58e8a1a4d4e6f156da5d29fb6ad6a62fc9c594bbfc6432b3252e962d0e9e10149bf3035185dc5320c46c09f3e49662bc2973ec759679c0f3412232087cb8a3a7
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Converts some CCriticalSections with Mutexes; other minor refactoring
in
0fce09d1f0
see before
<img width="771" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/6443210/225969163-bb4cee62-3e6a-4224-980a-11b2e0024a60.png">
and after
<img width="766" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/6443210/225969245-e8afcbf6-c112-40c4-9504-82830b005a53.png">
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Added v20 BIP9 style fork structure along with utility functions.
Since several features coming depending on that fork status, we needed
to group them into one
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
should fix "qdata: Already received" discouraging issue
the root of the issue is that we remove expired requests on
UpdatedBlockTip which is too late sometimes.
## What was done?
replacing expired requests with a new one in RequestQuorumData kind of
does the same (drops the expired request) but without waiting for
UpdatedBlockTip
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
add a bias to IsExpired to avoid potential timing issues where nodeA thinks it's been 300 seconds but nodeB only thinks it's been 295 for some reason
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently, we store internally the nodes that already requested
`QGETDATA` for the same Quorum.
If data for the same Quorum is requested twice from the same `proRegTx`,
then the requester is P2P misbehaved.
## What was done?
Some data like `VerificationVector` and `EncryptedContributions` are not
instantly available.
This PR does not misbehave nodes for requesting data that weren't
available when asked.
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Added logs with requested parameters (`llmqType`, `quorumHash`,
`proRegTx`) when sending `qgetdata` for better troubleshooting.
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
This allows us to have a bit more granular control over GetLLMQ results,
removes code duplication and also optimises things a tiny bit by
replacing "HasLLMQ + GetLLMQParams" calls with simply "GetLLMQParams".
## What was done?
Use `optional` in `GetLLMQ`, drop `HasLLMQ`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, reindex on testnet/mainnet
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
After the DIP24 fork, instant locks will still be served by
`llmq_test_instantsend`, since no `llmq_test_dip0024` will be formed
with less than 4 nodes.
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
- Added new LLMQ type `llmq_25_67`
- The above LLMQ is added only for Testnet and it is activated with v19
fork.
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Avoid redundant calls to GetLLMQParams
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Avoid lots of static_cast's from enums to underlying types. Communicate
intention better
## What was done?
implement c++23 inspired ToUnderlying, then see std::to_underlying and
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/underlying_type; Then, we use
this instead of static_casts for enums -> underlying type
## How Has This Been Tested?
make check
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: Konstantin Akimov <knstqq@gmail.com>
