89895773b72275a620951730aef0b52e9437bc13 Fix length of R check in test/key_tests.cpp:key_signature_tests (Dmitry Petukhov)
Pull request description:
The code before the fix only checked the length of R value of the last
signature in the loop, and only for equality (but the length can be
less than 32)
The fixed code checks that length of the R value is less than or equal
to 32 on each iteration of the loop
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK 89895773b72275a620951730aef0b52e9437bc13
Tree-SHA512: 73eb2bb4a6c1c5fc11dd16851b28b43037ac06ef8cfc3b1f957429a1fca295c9422d67ec6c73c0e4bb4919f92e22dc5d733e84840b0d01ad1a529aa20d906ebf
1e9bfd4926a3cbb9db877c773a60b0bbbbe8bde0 qt: Reset toolbar after all wallets are closed (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
If the last open wallet is closed from the non-"Overview" tab, that tab remains active when a new wallet is opened:
This PR fixes this bug.
ACKs for top commit:
promag:
Code review ACK 1e9bfd4926a3cbb9db877c773a60b0bbbbe8bde0.
luke-jr:
utACK 1e9bfd4926a3cbb9db877c773a60b0bbbbe8bde0
jonasschnelli:
utACK 1e9bfd4926a3cbb9db877c773a60b0bbbbe8bde0
Tree-SHA512: a8dfd7591267e9544ad40c87581d554e5cfaad4b2a5bbfdbaf2596dc6869d2ac6cf7877adfef3d528fc61b081d40c6e30d787bbd7280ef7946aa7f7d9bc8b18e
a92485b2c250fd18f55d22aa32722bf52ab32bfe addrman: use unordered_map instead of map (Vasil Dimov)
Pull request description:
`CAddrMan` uses `std::map` internally even though it does not require
that the map's elements are sorted. `std::map`'s access time is
`O(log(map size))`. `std::unordered_map` is more suitable as it has a
`O(1)` access time.
This patch lowers the execution times of `CAddrMan`'s methods as follows
(as per `src/bench/addrman.cpp`):
```
AddrMan::Add(): -3.5%
AddrMan::GetAddr(): -76%
AddrMan::Good(): -0.38%
AddrMan::Select(): -45%
```
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
ACK a92485b2c250fd18f55d22aa32722bf52ab32bfe
achow101:
ACK a92485b2c250fd18f55d22aa32722bf52ab32bfe
hebasto:
re-ACK a92485b2c250fd18f55d22aa32722bf52ab32bfe, only suggested changes and rebased since my [previous](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18722#pullrequestreview-666663681) review.
Tree-SHA512: d82959a00e6bd68a6c4c5a265dd08849e6602ac3231293b7a3a3b7bf82ab1d3ba77f8ca682919c15c5d601b13e468b8836fcf19595248116635f7a50d02ed603
9adc2f80fc14f11ee2b1f989ee7be71b58481e6f Refactor OutputGroups to handle effective values, fees, and filtering (Andrew Chow)
7d07e864b8846be186648814a5aaf34269f914a3 Use real value when calculating OutputGroup value (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
Currently, the effective values and filtering for positive effective values is done outside of the OutputGroup. We should instead have functions in Outputgroup to do this and call those for each OutputGroup. So this PR does that.
This makes future changes for effective values in coin selection much easier.
ACKs for top commit:
instagibbs:
reACK 9adc2f80fc14f11ee2b1f989ee7be71b58481e6f
fjahr:
re-ACK 9adc2f80fc14f11ee2b1f989ee7be71b58481e6f
meshcollider:
Light code review ACK 9adc2f80fc14f11ee2b1f989ee7be71b58481e6f
Tree-SHA512: 7445c94b7295b45bcd83a6f8a5c8f6961a89453fcc856335192d4b4a66aec7724513616b04e5111588ab208c89b311055399d6279cd9c4ce452aefb85f04b64a
7486e2771e7b5d6fa84df6e954be76350c84e220 Tests: Unit test related to WalletDB ReadKeyValue (Bushstar)
32def8d1c29e0855fe5429687acabd2f29119316 Catch ios_base::failure specifically (Peter Bushnell)
Pull request description:
In https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2950 a hash of the pubkey and private was added to speed up key import, this was made backwards compatible by reading the hash in a try block with an ellipses catch all in case the hash was not present.
CDataStream::read() specifically throws std::ios_base::failure, backwards compatibility expects only that error to be thrown, if something else gets thrown we should not be catching it. The change in this commit is to catch that exception only. If any other exception is thrown other than std::ios_base::failure it will be caught by the wider try block and an error written to the log and/or console.
CDataStream::read() throwing std::ios_base::failure.
2c364fde42/src/streams.h (L191)
Wider catch statements that pick up all others exceptions other than ios_base::failure.
2c364fde42/src/wallet/walletdb.cpp (L425)2c364fde42/src/wallet/walletdb.cpp (L430)
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK 7486e2771e7b5d6fa84df6e954be76350c84e220
Tree-SHA512: 5364bf935af8ec603bf5b8fef8c23b5cdaa4fe3506090cff988413221f2eaa99f7a91929afb42a35f8881ce2328744a0d32052da51ca0a5b2e65b6809e97f604
fa8bed6a47c88f769ae05b04b93eeaf2e1011478 fuzz: Temporarily disable failing assert in banman fuzz test (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Otherwise the remainder of the fuzz test can't be fuzzed without running into crashes
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
cr ACK fa8bed6a47c88f769ae05b04b93eeaf2e1011478
Tree-SHA512: ec6606292e2cfd26484c7f6caf1c418c377da54111b332990fce68373f0438defda71d931a42ca34431527fbc172dd2fdf29b260afca15b34910ee137de1c365
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
c3e111a7daf5800026dda4455c737de0412528f1 Reduced number of validations in `tx_validationcache_tests` to keep the run time reasonable. (lucash-dev)
Pull request description:
Following a suggestion in the comments, changed `ValidateCheckInputsForAllFlags` from testing all possible flag combinations to testing a random subset. Also created a new enum constant for the highest flag, so that this test doesn’t keep testing an incomplete subset in case a new flag is added.
Timing for `checkinputs_test`:
```
Before: 6.8s
After: 3.7s
----------------
Saved: 3.1s (45%)
```
This PR was split from #13050. Also see #10026.
ACKs for top commit:
leonardojobim:
tACK c3e111a7da.
kallewoof:
ACK c3e111a7daf5800026dda4455c737de0412528f1
theStack:
re-ACK c3e111a7daf5800026dda4455c737de0412528f1
Tree-SHA512: bef49645bdd4f61ec73cc77a9f028b95d9856db9446d2e7fc9a48867a6f0e94c2c9f150cb771a30fe852db0efb0a1bd15d38b00d712651793ccb59ff6157a7b4
78f4c8b98eada337346ffb206339c3ebae4ff43b prefer to use txindex if available for GetTransaction (Jameson Lopp)
Pull request description:
Fixes#22382
Motivation: prevent excessive disk reads if txindex is enabled.
Worth noting that this could be argued to be less of a bug and more of an issue of undefined behavior. If a user calls GetTransaction with the wrong block hash, what should happen?
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
ACK 78f4c8b98eada337346ffb206339c3ebae4ff43b
theStack:
Code review ACK 78f4c8b98eada337346ffb206339c3ebae4ff43b
LarryRuane:
tACK 78f4c8b98eada337346ffb206339c3ebae4ff43b
luke-jr:
utACK 78f4c8b98eada337346ffb206339c3ebae4ff43b
jnewbery:
utACK 78f4c8b98eada337346ffb206339c3ebae4ff43b
rajarshimaitra:
Code review ACK 78f4c8b98e
lsilva01:
Code Review ACK and Tested ACK 78f4c8b98e on Ubuntu 20.04
Tree-SHA512: af7db5b98cb2ae4897b28476b2fa243bf7e6f850750d9347062fe8013c5720986d1a3c808f80098e5289bd84b085de03c81a44e584dc28982f721c223651bfe0
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
f036dfbb692c4d44d0f59194d089ed0aa1096347 [addrman] Remove unused test_before_evict argument from Good() (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
This has never been used in the public interface method since it was
introduced in #9037.
ACKs for top commit:
lsilva01:
Tested ACK f036dfbb69 on Ubuntu 20.04.
theStack:
Code-review ACK f036dfbb692c4d44d0f59194d089ed0aa1096347
Tree-SHA512: 98145d9596b4ae1f354cfa561be1a54c6b8057c920e0ac3d4c1d42c9326b2dad2d44320f4171bb701d97088b216760cca8017b84c8b5dcd2b1dc8f158f28066d
fa621ededdfe31a200b77a8787de7e3d2e667aec refactor: Pass script verify flags as uint32_t (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
The flags are cast to unsigned in the interpreter anyway, so avoid the confusion (and fuzz crashes) by just passing them as unsigned from the beginning.
Also, the flags are often inverted bit-wise with the `~` operator, which also works on signed integers, but might cause confusion as the sign bit is flipped.
Fixes#22233
ACKs for top commit:
theStack:
Concept and code review ACK fa621ededdfe31a200b77a8787de7e3d2e667aec
kristapsk:
ACK fa621ededdfe31a200b77a8787de7e3d2e667aec
jonatack:
ACK fa621ededdfe31a200b77a8787de7e3d2e667aec
Tree-SHA512: ea0720f32f823fa7f075309978672aa39773c6019d12b6c1c9d611fc1983a76115b7fe2a28d50814673bb6415c311ccc05b99d6e871575fb6900faf75ed17769
fae108ceb53f61d7338ba205873623ede3c1d3be Fix incorrect whitespace in addrman (MarcoFalke)
fa32024d51c098441623e246f304a80f011e29d1 Add missing GUARDED_BY to CAddrMan::insecure_rand (MarcoFalke)
fab755b77f88873f01cbd988051de7ad3f0150de fuzz: Actually use const addrman (MarcoFalke)
fae0c79351ce34186249d44af0c5c9c7521f4b6c refactor: Mark CAddrMan::GetAddr const (MarcoFalke)
fa02934c8c9d290ea4d12683e8680c70967a4d3a refactor: Mark CAddrMan::Select const (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
To clarify that a call to this only changes the random state and nothing else.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
Code review ACK fae108ceb53f61d7338ba205873623ede3c1d3be
theStack:
re-ACK fae108ceb53f61d7338ba205873623ede3c1d3be 🍦
Tree-SHA512: 3ffb211d4715cc3daeb3bfcdb3fcc6b108ca96df5fa565510436fac0e8da86c93b30c9c4aad0563e27d84f615fcd729481072009a4e2360c8b3d40787ab6506a
2748e8793267126c5b40621d75d1930e358f057e script: prevent UB when computing abs value for num opcode serialize (pierrenn)
Pull request description:
This was reported by practicalswift here #18046
It seems that the original author of the line used a reference to glibc `abs`: https://github.com/lattera/glibc/blob/master/stdlib/abs.c
However depending on some implementation details this can be undefined behavior for unusual values.
A detailed explanation of the UB is provided here : https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17313579/is-there-a-safe-way-to-get-the-unsigned-absolute-value-of-a-signed-integer-with (by [Billy O'Neal](https://twitter.com/malwareminigun))
Simple relevant godbolt example : https://godbolt.org/z/yRwtCG
Thanks!
ACKs for top commit:
sipa:
ACK 2748e8793267126c5b40621d75d1930e358f057e
MarcoFalke:
ACK 2748e8793267126c5b40621d75d1930e358f057e, only checked that the bitcoind binary does not change with clang -O2 🎓
practicalswift:
ACK 2748e8793267126c5b40621d75d1930e358f057e
Tree-SHA512: 539a34c636c2674c66cb6e707d9d0dfdce63f59b5525610ed88da10c9a8d59d81466b111ad63b850660cef3750d732fc7755530c81a2d61f396be0707cd86dec
fabe44e8154a6068d6cba91ec30f00345ed7b275 bench: Start nodes with -nodebuglogfile (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
For benchmarking we don't want to depend on the speed of the disk or the amount of debug logging
ACKs for top commit:
fanquake:
ACK fabe44e8154a6068d6cba91ec30f00345ed7b275 - This makes some of these benchmarks significantly faster to run. MempoolEviction total runtime is down from ~46s to 11s on my machine:
Tree-SHA512: d99700901650325896b9115d20b84a27042152f46266f595bf7ea1414528c0b346f4e707a12ee8b8ba99c35cf155e645e67971c1b2a679c4e609c400ff8b08ae
d51f0fa4b7b19281efe65aacf414845c661d0a13 doc: add release notes for 26896 (fanquake)
2b248798d96f794db08b7725730b5fb4e00b9b10 build: remove --enable-upnp-default from configure (fanquake)
02f5a5e7b5fd7ba35e407d4409202a0e0fed003c build: remove --enable-natpmp-default from configure (fanquake)
25a0e8ba0b31d8bd265df0589fe49241a60d0fc2 Remove configure-time setting of DEFAULT_UPNP (fanquake)
06562e5fa771dab275a9cab4914cd64d961a52bc Remove configure-time setting of DEFAULT_NATPMP (fanquake)
Pull request description:
This PR removes the `--enable-upnp-default` and `--enable-natpmp-default` options from configure.
It's odd to me that we maintain configure-time options for setting the default port-forwarding runtime state (but no other similar options), and I'm not sure what use-case it satisfies, that can't be achieved by multiple other means. I also doubt that we'll ever restart using these in release builds, or turning on any of this by default.
I think the only scenario these options would be used is when you want to compile your own binaries (we don't use them in Guix), with port-forwarding on by default, but otherwise can't or don't want to use a `.conf` file, can't or don't want to pass command line options at runtime, and also don't want to modify the source code?
ACKs for top commit:
hebasto:
ACK d51f0fa4b7b19281efe65aacf414845c661d0a13, rebased and comments have been addressed since my recent [review](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26896#pullrequestreview-1273910740).
TheCharlatan:
ACK d51f0fa4b7b19281efe65aacf414845c661d0a13
Tree-SHA512: 481decd8bddd8b03b7319591e3acf189f7b6b96c9a9a8c5bc1a3f8ec00d0b8f9b52d2f5c28a298a2ec947cfe9611cfd184e393ccb2e4e21bfce86ca7d4de60d3
2896c412fadbc03916a33028f4f50fd87ac48edb Do not answer GETDATA for to-be-announced tx (Pieter Wuille)
f2f32a3dee9a965c8198f9ddd3aaebc627c273e4 Push down use of cs_main into FindTxForGetData (Pieter Wuille)
c6131bf407c1ada78a0e5509a702bc7da0bfd57d Abstract logic to determine whether to answer tx GETDATA (Pieter Wuille)
Pull request description:
This PR intends to improve transaction-origin privacy.
In general, we should try to not leak information about what transactions we have (recently) learned about before deciding to announce them to our peers. There is a controlled transaction dissemination process that reveals our transactions to peers that has various safeguards for privacy (it's rate-limited, delayed & batched, deterministically sorted, ...), and ideally there is no way to test which transactions we have before that controlled process reveals them. The handling of the `mempool` BIP35 message has protections in this regard as well, as it would be an obvious way to bypass these protections (handled asynchronously after a delay, also deterministically sorted).
However, currently, if we receive a GETDATA for a transaction that we have not yet announced to the requester, we will still respond to it if it was announced to *some* other peer already (because it needs to be in `mapRelay`, which only happens on the first announcement). This is a slight privacy leak.
Thankfully, this seems easy to solve: `setInventontoryTxToSend` keeps track of the txids we have yet to announce to a peer - which almost(*) exactly corresponds to the transactions we know of that we haven't revealed to that peer. By checking whether a txid is in that set before responding to a GETDATA, we can filter these out.
(*) Locally resubmitted or rebroadcasted transactions may end up in setInventoryTxToSend while the peer already knows we have them, which could result in us incorrectly claiming we don't have such transactions if coincidentally requested right after we schedule reannouncing them, but before they're actually INVed. This is made even harder by the fact that filterInventoryKnown will generally keep known reannouncements out of setInventoryTxToSend unless it overflows (which needs 50000 INVs in either direction before it happens).
The condition for responding now becomes:
```
(not in setInventoryTxToSend) AND
(
(in relay map) OR
(
(in mempool) AND
(old enough that it could have expired from relay map) AND
(older than our last getmempool response)
)
)
```
ACKs for top commit:
naumenkogs:
utACK 2896c41
ajtowns:
ACK 2896c412fadbc03916a33028f4f50fd87ac48edb
amitiuttarwar:
code review ACK 2896c412fa
jonatack:
ACK 2896c412fadbc03916 per `git diff 2b3f101 2896c41` only change since previous review is moving the recency check up to be verified first in `FindTxForGetData`, as it was originally in 353a391 (good catch), before looking up the transaction in the relay pool.
jnewbery:
code review ACK 2896c412fadbc03916a33028f4f50fd87ac48edb
Tree-SHA512: e7d5bc006e626f60a2c108a9334f3bbb67205ace04a7450a1e4d4db1d85922a7589e0524500b7b4953762cf70554c4a08eec62c7b38b486cbca3d86321600868
83da576f4416c64b5d520819208a722b2273739a net: use CMessageHeader::HEADER_SIZE, add missing include (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
as suggested 16 months ago by Gleb Naumenko in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15197#issuecomment-456181865.
`static constexpr CMessageHeader::HEADER_SIZE` is already used in this file, `src/net.cpp`, in 2 instances. This commit replaces the remaining 2 integer values in the file with it and adds the explicit include header.
Co-authored by: Gleb Naumenko <naumenko.gs@gmail.com>
ACKs for top commit:
naumenkogs:
utACK 83da576
practicalswift:
ACK 83da576f4416c64b5d520819208a722b2273739a -- patch looks correct
theStack:
ACK 83da576f4416c64b5d520819208a722b2273739a -- verified that its just magic number elimination refactoring and additionally checked that all tests pass 👍
Tree-SHA512: 5b915483bca4ea162c259865a1b615d73b88a1b1db3f82db05f770d10b8a42494d948f5b21badbcce2d9efa5915b8cbb6af83073867c23d2f152c0d35ac37b96
746736639e6d05acdb85c866d4c605c947d4c500 [net processing] Only send a getheaders for one block in an INV (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
Headers-first is the primary method of announcement on the network. If a node fell back sending blocks by inv, it's probably for a re-org. The final block hash provided should be the highest, so send a getheaders and then fetch the blocks we need to catch up.
Sending many GETHEADERS messages to the peer would cause them to send a large number of potentially large HEADERS messages with redundant data, which is a waste of bandwidth.
ACKs for top commit:
sipa:
utACK 746736639e6d05acdb85c866d4c605c947d4c500
mzumsande:
utACK 746736639e6d05acdb85c866d4c605c947d4c500 as per ajtowns' reasoning.
naumenkogs:
utACK 7467366
ajtowns:
ACK 746736639e6d05acdb85c866d4c605c947d4c500
jonatack:
ACK 746736639e6d05acdb85c866d4c605c947d4c500
Tree-SHA512: 59e243b80d3f0873709dfacb2e4ffba34689aad7de31ec7f69a64e0e3a0756235a0150e4082ff5de823949ba4411ee1aed2344b4749b62e0eb1ea906e41f5ea9
Prior required changes: bitcoin/bitcoin#19438 from
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5740
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Assertion failure:
```
assertion: ok
file: evo/mnhftx.cpp, line: 287
function: AbstractEHFManager::Signals CMNHFManager::GetFromCache(const CBlockIndex*)
No debug information available for stacktrace. You should add debug information and then run: dash-qt -printcrashinfo=bvcgc43iinzgc43ijfxgm3ybaadwiyltnawxc5e3ifzxgzlsoruw63ramzqws3dvojstucraebqxg43foj2gs33ohiqg62ykeaqgm2lmmu5cazlwn4xw23timz2hqltdobycyidmnfxgkoragi4docraebthk3tdoruw63r2ebawe43uojqwg5cfjbde2ylomftwk4r2hjjwsz3omfwhgicdjvheqrsnmfxgcz3foi5dur3fordhe33ninqwg2dffbrw63ttoqqegqtmn5rwwslomrsxqkrjbyrelhyaaaaaaaedgkiaaaaaaaadsm4qaaaaaaaa7gpyqaaaaaaaa2njraaaaaaaadkl3caaaaaaaabhxznqaaaaaaadqa2eaaaaaaaax33twaaaaaaabwaihqaaaaaaac7yooqbaaaaaahba45qcaaaaaacwkz2aeaaaaaaeitgeaiaaaaaaaa=
dash-qt: evo/mnhftx.cpp:287: AbstractEHFManager::Signals CMNHFManager::GetFromCache(const CBlockIndex*): Assertion `ok' failed.
```
This can happen in case if Dash Core has been update from v19 (or
earlier v20.alphaX) to v20.0.0 after v20 activation without re-indexing
## What was done?
`CMNHFManager` is visiting missing blocks recursively until reach first
v20 block or first block actually saved in evoDb.
Without changes from bitcoin/bitcoin#19438 there's an other issue:
```
2023-11-27T11:12:10Z POTENTIAL DEADLOCK DETECTED
Previous lock order was:
(2) 'cs_main' in llmq/instantsend.cpp:459 (in thread 'isman')
(1) 'cs_llmq_vbc' in llmq/utils.cpp:711 (in thread 'isman')
Current lock order is:
'cs_dip3list' in qt/masternodelist.cpp:135 (TRY) (in thread 'main')
(1) 'cs_llmq_vbc' in llmq/utils.cpp:719 (in thread 'main')
(2) 'cs_main' in node/blockstorage.cpp:77 (in thread 'main')
Assertion failed: detected inconsistent lock order for 'cs_main' in node/blockstorage.cpp:77 (in thread 'main'), details in debug log.
2023-11-27T11:12:10Z Posix Signal: Aborted
```
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional test; run dash-qt on my local backup of problematic
storage (succeed without error); reindex testnet.
## 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)_
e48826ad87b4f92261f7433e84f48dac9bd9e5c3 tests: remove ComputeBlockVersion shortcut from versionbits tests (Anthony Towns)
c5f36725e877d8eb492383844f8ef7535466b366 [refactor] Move ComputeBlockVersion into VersionBitsCache (Anthony Towns)
4a69b4dbe0d7f504811b67c399da7e6d11e4f805 [move-only] Move ComputeBlockVersion from validation to versionbits (Anthony Towns)
0cfd6c6a8f929d5567ac41f95c21548f115efee5 [refactor] versionbits: make VersionBitsCache a full class (Anthony Towns)
8ee3e0bed5bf2cd3c7a68ca6ba6c65f7b9a72cca [refactor] rpc/blockchain.cpp: SoftForkPushBack (Anthony Towns)
92f48f360da5f425428b761219301f509826bec4 deploymentinfo: Add DeploymentName() (Anthony Towns)
ea68b3a5729f5d240e968388c4f88acffeb27228 [move-only] Rename versionbitsinfo to deploymentinfo (Anthony Towns)
c64b2c6a0f79369624ae96b2e3d579d50aae4de6 scripted-diff: rename versionbitscache (Anthony Towns)
de55304f6e7a8b607e6b3fc7436de50910747b0c [refactor] Add versionbits deployments to deploymentstatus.h (Anthony Towns)
2b0d291da8f479739ff394dd92801da8c40b9f8e [refactor] Add deploymentstatus.h (Anthony Towns)
eccd736f3dc231ac0306ca763c3b72cf8247230a versionbits: Use dedicated lock instead of cs_main (Anthony Towns)
36a4ba0aaaa9b35185d7178994e36bc02cca9887 versionbits: correct doxygen comments (Anthony Towns)
Pull request description:
Introduces helper functions to make it easy to bury future deployments, along the lines of the suggestion from [11398](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11398#issuecomment-335599326) "I would prefer it if a buried deployment wouldn't require all code paths that check the BIP9 status to require changing".
This provides three functions: `DeploymentEnabled()` which tests if a deployment can ever be active, `DeploymentActiveAt()` which checks if a deployment should be enforced in the given block, and `DeploymentActiveAfter()` which checks if a deployment should be enforced in the block following the given block, and overloads all three to work both with buried deployments and versionbits deployments.
This adds a dedicated lock for the versionbits cache, which is acquired internally by the versionbits functions, rather than relying on `cs_main`. It also moves moves versionbitscache into deploymentstatus to avoid a circular dependency with validation.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
ACK e48826ad87b4f92261f7433e84f48dac9bd9e5c3
gruve-p:
ACK e48826ad87
MarcoFalke:
re-ACK e48826ad87b4f92261f7433e84f48dac9bd9e5c3 🥈
Tree-SHA512: c846ba64436d36f8180046ad551d8b0d9e20509b9bc185aa2639055fc28803dd8ec2d6771ab337e80da0b40009ad959590d5772f84a0bf6199b65190d4155bed
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Avoid a crash on -reindex-chainstate.
## What was done?
`ResetBlockFailureFlags` is crashing when `m_chain.Tip()` is null. Call
`ResetBlockFailureFlags` inside `if (!is_coinsview_empty(chainstate))
{...}` block - we know `m_chain.Tip()` is not null there.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Try running a node with `-reindex-chainstate` cmd-line param w/ and
w/out 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
## 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
- [ ] 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: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/4788#discussion_r854468664
noticed while working on #5731
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
run a node, check logs - there is a meaningful time span between `start`
and `done` now and not just zeros all the time.
## 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)_
faca9a3d5a6887517d02b994a43d0e1101b718bc test: Avoid intermittent issues due to async events in validationinterface_tests (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Currently the tests have many issues:
* They setup the genesis block, even though it is not needed
* They queue an async `UpdatedBlockTip` even, which causes intermittent issues: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28146#issuecomment-1650064645
Fix all issues by trimming down the setup to just `ChainTestingSetup`.
ACKs for top commit:
Crypt-iQ:
tACK faca9a3d5a6887517d02b994a43d0e1101b718bc
Tree-SHA512: 4449040330f89bbaf5ce5b2052417c160b451c373987fdf1069596c07834ed81f0aea1506d53c7d2cd21062b27332d30679285dae194b272fd0cb9ce5ded32cf
7777f2a4bb1f9d843bc50a4e35085cfbb2808780 miner: Avoid stack-use-after-return in validationinterface (MarcoFalke)
fa5ceb25fce2200edf6b8ebfa6d4f01ed6774b95 test: Remove UninterruptibleSleep from test and replace it by SyncWithValidationInterfaceQueue (MarcoFalke)
fa770ce7fe67685c43780e219d8232efbee0bb8e validationinterface: Rework documentation, Rename pwalletIn to callbacks (MarcoFalke)
fab6d060ce5f580db538070beec1c5518c8c777c test: Add unregister_validation_interface_race test (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
When a validationinterface has itself unregistered in one thread, but is about to get executed in another thread [1], there is a race:
* The validationinterface destructing itself
* The validationinterface getting dereferenced for execution
[1] 64139803f1/src/validationinterface.cpp (L82-L83)
This happens in the miner. More generally it happens everywhere where at least one thread is generating notifications and another one is unregistering a validationinterface.
This issue has been fixed in commit ab31b9d6fe7b39713682e3f52d11238dbe042c16, but the fix has not been applied to the miner.
Example where this happened in practice: https://travis-ci.org/github/bitcoin/bitcoin/jobs/675322230#L4414
ACKs for top commit:
promag:
Code review ACK 7777f2a4bb1f9d843bc50a4e35085cfbb2808780.
laanwj:
Code review ACK 7777f2a4bb1f9d843bc50a4e35085cfbb2808780
Tree-SHA512: 8087119243c71ba18a823a63515f3730d127162625d8729024278b447af29e2ff206f4840ee3d90bf84f93a2c5ab73b76c7e7044c83aa93b5b51047a166ec3d3
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
- The name `CB_V19_VERSION` is confusing because CbTx v2 was introduced
in v14, not v19
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/doc/release-notes/dash/release-notes-0.14.0.md#dip0004---coinbase-payload-v2
- There are magic numbers instead of constants in some places
- `CheckCbTx` should check whatever the upper limit is, not
`CB_V20_VERSION` specifically
## What was done?
Turn CbTx versions into enum using self-describing names
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run tests
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Should fix compilation errors like
```
masternode/meta.cpp:43:9: error: call to member function 'pushKV' is ambiguous
ret.pushKV("lastOutboundAttemptElapsed", now - lastOutboundAttempt);
^~
masternode/meta.cpp:45:9: error: call to member function 'pushKV' is ambiguous
ret.pushKV("lastOutboundSuccessElapsed", now - lastOutboundSuccess);
^~
```
on FreeBSD + clang-15
kudos to @MrDefacto for finding the issue and testing the fix
## What was done?
Specify `now` variable type explicitly instead of relying on `auto`
## How Has This Been Tested?
MrDefacto confirmed it compiles with no issues on FreeBSD now
## 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
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>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Should fix crashes like
```
: Corrupted block database detected.
Please restart with -reindex or -reindex-chainstate to recover.
Assertion failure:
assertion: globalInstance == nullptr
file: mnhftx.cpp, line: 43
function: CMNHFManager
0#: (0x105ADA27C) stacktraces.cpp:629 - __assert_rtn
1#: (0x104945794) mnhftx.cpp:43 - CMNHFManager::CMNHFManager(CEvoDB&)
2#: (0x10499DA90) compressed_pair.h:40 - std::__1::__unique_if<CMNHFManager>::__unique_single std::__1::make_unique[abi:v15006]<CMNHFManager, CEvoDB&>(CEvoDB&)
3#: (0x10499753C) init.cpp:1915 - AppInitMain(std::__1::variant<std::__1::nullopt_t, std::__1::reference_wrapper<NodeContext>, std::__1::reference_wrapper<WalletContext>, std::__1::reference_wrapper<CTxMemPool>, std::__1::reference_wrapper<ChainstateManager>, std::__1::reference_wrapper<CBlockPolicyEstimator>, std::__1::reference_wrapper<LLMQContext>> const&, NodeContext&, interfaces::BlockAndHeaderTipInfo*)
```
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
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
8f79831ab57b8fce48bb7b01fce86fac338755a5 Refactor the chacha20 differential fuzz test (stratospher)
Pull request description:
This PR addresses [comments from #22704](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22704/files#discussion_r771510963) to make the following changes in `src/test/fuzz/crypto_diff_fuzz_chacha20.cpp`:
- replace `memcmp()` with ==
- add a missing assert statement to compare the encrypted bytes
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: 02338460fb3a89e732558bf00f3aebf8f04daba194e03ae0e3339bb2ff6ba35d06841452585b739047a29f8ec64f36b1b4ce2dfa39a08f6ad44a6a937e7b3acb
4d0ac72f3ae78e3c6a0d5dc4f7e809583abd0546 [fuzz] Add fuzzing harness to compare both implementations of ChaCha20 (stratospher)
65ef93203cc6a977c8e96f07cb9155f46faf5004 [fuzz] Add D. J. Bernstein's implementation of ChaCha20 (stratospher)
Pull request description:
This PR compares Bitcoin Core's implementation of ChaCha20 with D. J. Bernstein's in order to find implementation discrepancies if any.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK 4d0ac72f3ae78e3c6a0d5dc4f7e809583abd0546
Tree-SHA512: f826144b4db61b9cbdd7efaaca8fa9cbb899953065bc8a26820a566303b2ab6a17431e7c114635789f0a63fbe3b65cb0bf2ab85baf882803a5ee172af4881544
fa7718344d2879bb3f3c00a4185c5445390c017d fuzz: Avoid OOM in system fuzz target (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
If the inputs size is unlimited, the target may consume unlimited memory, because the argsmanager stores the argument names. Limiting the size should fix this issue.
Should fix https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=36906
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
cr ACK fa7718344d2879bb3f3c00a4185c5445390c017d
Tree-SHA512: 6edfcf324ee9d94e511038ee01340f02db50bcb233af3f1a1717c3602164c88528d9d987e971ec32f1a4593b868019bea0102c53c9b02bfefec3dfde959483cf
81c09ee45caecf8d9daf6766b94cebf54f3f08cd Unroll the ChaCha20 inner loop for performance (Pieter Wuille)
Pull request description:
Unrolling the inner ChaCha20 loop gives a ~15% speedup for me in the CHACHA20_* benchmarks. It's a simple change, this performance helps with RNG generation, and will matter more for BIP324.
ACKs for top commit:
martinus:
tested ACK 81c09ee with clang++ 13.0.1, test `CHACHA20_1MB`:
MarcoFalke:
ACK 81c09ee45caecf8d9daf6766b94cebf54f3f08cd 🍟
Tree-SHA512: 108bd0ba573bb08de92d611e7be7c09a2c2700f9655f44129b87f9b71f7e101dfc6bd345783e7b4b9b40f0b003913cf59187f422da8cdb5b20887f7855b2611a
fa50d8b66e74792eb46515853e4aa8a99f25561b doc: Remove TODO comment in tx_verify (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
The comment has no clear motivation, so it seems better to remove it and fix it when there is a reason.
An alternative (if a fix isn't possible when there is a clear motivation) would be to create an issue thread for easier discussion.
ACKs for top commit:
fanquake:
ACK fa50d8b66e74792eb46515853e4aa8a99f25561b
Tree-SHA512: e9c25bab46a73b7c2db288c62ed9838a5e794b3b72db494173f4502da60b58dec4383064964c0842932cd30e4251fc01ad0c28681e2ef6cb442482eea2bad595
## 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
## 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)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`creditpool` and `ehf` categories are missing in `logging`/`debug` RPCs
😞
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
run `debug` and `logging` RPCs and make sure these categories are listed
now
## 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
mn_rr should be backwards compatible to v20.0.0; in the case we need to
introduce breaking changes on any of the features in mn_rr then we
should create a new mn_rr_v2 hard fork.
## What was done?
Add timestamps for mn_rr for main net activation
## 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._
- [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>
Co-authored-by: Konstantin Akimov <knstqq@gmail.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Be more explicit about the fact that spork24 is for non-mainnet only,
enforce it in code.
NOTE: I know we have EHF signalling disabled for mainnet in v20 but I
think it still makes sense to make sure spork24 condition won't slip
into mainnet in some future version accidentally.
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
1. we _should not_ skip masternode payments checks below
nSuperblockStartBlock or when governance is disabled
2. we _should_ skip superblock payee checks while we aren't synced yet
(should help recovering from missed triggers)
## What was done?
pls see individual commits.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, sync w/ and w/out `--disablegovernance`, reindexed on testnet
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
When Platform restarts on a network, it needs to sign requests using old
quorums.
We shouldn't remove data (secret key shares, vvec) for old Platform
quorums as we do with the rest of the llmqs.
## What was done?
We skip removing for Platform quorums younger than 2 months.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
no
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
```
Assertion failure:
assertion: quorum != nullptr
file: quorums.cpp, line: 547
function: ScanQuorums
```
## What was done?
Hold cs_main while scanning to make sure tip doesn't move. Happened in
`ProcessPendingInstantSendLocks()` only for me but I thought that it
would probably make sense to apply the same fix in other places too.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run `invalidateblock` for a deep enough height (100s of blocks)
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Use not_null if the function would crash if given a nullptr
## What was done?
Refactored to use gsl::not_null
## How Has This Been Tested?
Compiled
## Breaking Changes
Should be none
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Addressed issues and comments from [PR
comment](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5469#discussion_r1317886678)
and [PR
comment](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5469#discussion_r1338704082)
`Params()` should be const; global variable `CMNHFManager` is a better
out-come.
## What was done?
The helpers and direct calls of `UpdateMNParams` for each block to
update non-constant member in `Params()` is not needed anymore. Instead
`CMNHFManager` takes cares about status of Signals for each block,
update them dynamically and save in evo db.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests.
## Breaking Changes
Changed rpc `getblockchaininfo`.
the field `ehf` changed meaning: it's now only a flag -1/0; but it is
introduced a new field `ehf_height` now that a height.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/5471
## What was done?
It splits from https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5443
Adds extra unit tests for BLS basic scheme; enforces BLS basic for Evo
Nodes in serialization/unserialization of CProRegTx, CProUpServTx.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run functional/unit tests + added new unit tests.
## Breaking Changes
Serialization slightly changed, but it should be not breaking change
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently, on functional tests v20 activates at height 1440 which is
later than needed.
## What was done?
Reduced the window size of v20 from 480 to 400 which activates v20 at
1200.
Adjusted tests to this change.
Note regarding the window analysis for MN payments in
`feature_llmq_evo.py` (reduced from 256 to 48 blocks):
48 window is enough to analyse 4 MNs and 5 EvoNodes (Weighted count=24)
On my machine using develop:
`python3 feature_llmq_rotation.py 145.45s user 30.00s system 68% cpu
4:16.93 total`
With this PR:
`python3 feature_llmq_rotation.py 119.26s user 24.61s system 62% cpu
3:50.89 total`
## How Has This Been Tested?
all tests
## Breaking Changes
no
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
63631beef6a0046390469971adf4500718ab34ad test: Remove intermittently failing and not very meaningful `BOOST_CHECK` in `cnetaddr_basic` (practicalswift)
Pull request description:
Remove intermittently failing and not very meaningful `BOOST_CHECK` in `cnetaddr_basic`.
Fixes#21682.
Rationale from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21682#issuecomment-819897122:
> I've looked at that test before and I don't think that specific `BOOST_CHECK` makes much sense TBH :)
>
> 1.) I don't understand why we test if `ToString()` output includes `%zone_index`: it clearly doesn't on some platforms, so we cannot rely on it anyways. Then why test it?
>
> 2.) And perhaps more fundamentally: why would we even _want_ to have `%zone_index` in our textual `ToString()` output? I think the expectation is to get say `fe80::1ff:fe23:4567:890a` (without zone index) and not say `fe80::1ff:fe23:4567:890a%eth2 ` or `fe80::1ff:fe23:4567:890a%3 `when doing `ipv6_addr.ToString()` :)
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
review ACK 63631beef6a0046390469971adf4500718ab34ad
Tree-SHA512: 06863d1edfb9ad1ca9bcae09cf3f0f47b58bb29d222b70799c3dc059b96452889026e4b99b132782846d9896e3e798d17c7f9406e0e6a0bec1bffc6edb54e9df
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
We need some network that mimics v20 governance budget changes a bit
better. All our networks _lower_ the budget after v20 activation while
mainnet would actually rise it.
## What was done?
Reuse `nHighSubsidyBlocks` as a starting point for a fixed nSubsidyBase
value to better mimic mainnet changes on v20.
## How Has This Been Tested?
That's a devnet-only change, so no testing yet
## Breaking Changes
Won't sync on old devnets after these changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: Konstantin Akimov <knstqq@gmail.com>
It's partial due to this missing changes:
```
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25233/files#diff-4cb884d03ebb901069e4ee5de5d02538c40dd9b39919c615d8eaa9d364bbbd77L632
```
cc61bc2e19b1c8cb32778ef42746d32b02cc2671 compat: remove glibcxx sanity checks (fanquake)
Pull request description:
These checks were added in #4339, (see also #4081), to test
our back-compat stubs, however, those stubs no-longer exist (#22930),
meaning that these checks are now just testing some specific standard
library behaviour, without a particular rationale, or reason, compared
to any other standard library functionlity we use.
There has also been some discussion about our sanity checks in the
context of the libbitcoinkernel refactoring, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25065#discussion_r880668218.
Removing the checks removes the need to worry about atleast the
glibcxx checks.
Also remove the list of checks from the doc in `init.h`, because it is
incomplete, and anyone who wants to know what checks are included can
look at the function.
Guix Build (arm64):
```bash
e18a81e25b4707cbe113fb4d3ba2459013c1178e7cecfe446e4f14ee5ecd2ce8 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/arm-linux-gnueabihf/SHA256SUMS.part
9928cc38b79f827018cba0bdde98666b31806afcc79dd95a00acb8e153c36eec guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/arm-linux-gnueabihf/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-arm-linux-gnueabihf-debug.tar.gz
ebf4635ba4688899ae62e4bb17ebb2afb25c538c4a8068ef515920fd4e43754e guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/arm-linux-gnueabihf/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-arm-linux-gnueabihf.tar.gz
74c7e35b47c6d101fda7205f144d37150329b4c360db09d37b8c1437f3390898 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/arm64-apple-darwin/SHA256SUMS.part
6e12643b17be9326f1d873dfe51a52c082671540792877af624b42ca9f6e1791 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/arm64-apple-darwin/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-arm64-apple-darwin-unsigned.dmg
1d86d0416c7a50afd7bd8d850f416b7c7277464ccc95e4dae53b5b59415fc83d guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/arm64-apple-darwin/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-arm64-apple-darwin-unsigned.tar.gz
84070843f23839e7191ad3a667eb63c45f668eb95afbfb3fcdfb8363320f67d4 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/arm64-apple-darwin/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-arm64-apple-darwin.tar.gz
bf6ccd7b8c40476b1dc52b491757313ea3e96c43a01c8aabaf39f94dc1837329 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/dist-archive/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1.tar.gz
25e7e1ff7d8de38632abf9926343c8ba556209f3d03109c92864ffe72813a05f guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/powerpc64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
d0398de83841607b1bf921d4553b30ad5e2d70d0570e96a2eaaf2762e1103c79 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/powerpc64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-powerpc64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
f09cdc2ac2a2bb644f4749f3d74b5210ddb531594c33d127a907f0223e7793e5 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/powerpc64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-powerpc64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
ef36a68ef4e5ee9b311df40062cd2296f897e7b1550e39e0643601cd7d469010 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/powerpc64le-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
937b600a2b86304ccc5b6c71a7eaf8aa5e2020592724cef6a933a1955995480b guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/powerpc64le-linux-gnu/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-powerpc64le-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
eca4eec41e71fdf7a7b0fa4065afa49c47d3b9541ed2cb4d083ad4a0de102e37 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/powerpc64le-linux-gnu/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-powerpc64le-linux-gnu.tar.gz
981c0968c19905925a599cff357ec259c1e806bdb7691c7b52039be450bdad7c guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/riscv64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
89c709967f9a157256281fbf682aad246f2eaad9c2f1797c2787253cbabe12f8 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/riscv64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-riscv64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
454cd830dd382e176f5a23041fc33f93937668245481b0dd29fc04882d9528eb guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/riscv64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-riscv64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
e0812c2dc492e5c5f06e3685d19da8fb29ed38d3b32821d293ef01cb4fefbd79 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/x86_64-apple-darwin/SHA256SUMS.part
0e7d4241d8ac882a8091fa00a7813db87a3e5afec59627e45b6c910cfdd4a7b0 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/x86_64-apple-darwin/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-x86_64-apple-darwin-unsigned.dmg
3faaca046cbb2642445a7dd1f389ed7bf94a65de8372441c36d5cb79c030ce31 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/x86_64-apple-darwin/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-x86_64-apple-darwin-unsigned.tar.gz
73080f032a42db679baf0d09619671ac5b9d85be84a68bdd6b6709eb0e6465bd guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/x86_64-apple-darwin/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-x86_64-apple-darwin.tar.gz
07b6e1b6291404bca1044df4a45b6958b882ffb88c143ba98f1959960a394897 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/x86_64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
16b455f62398f4aa0d3821abb1cceb8151e31c2664e3f974a764a5b8702b50f3 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/x86_64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-x86_64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
3c1a3a6a343f17b83f3b3d47e9426eccd2d0bcc7f824cd958fcf2cf06cdc3276 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/x86_64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
f05afa688ea7211b0049555385fb2acc26986e24d8d00893389160e07037e693 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/x86_64-w64-mingw32/SHA256SUMS.part
8bcbae67dd0746c42e1e7c7db67725a69289b08e9aa97b873d443d0aa355615d guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/x86_64-w64-mingw32/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-win64-debug.zip
efa45e3b76e5ae08a8392d58e741325df572d92c7dd69b65d876cdcda541d2fc guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/x86_64-w64-mingw32/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-win64-setup-unsigned.exe
3a8c2461ca826138c3017d06279a79b4c6bee2a507ad362aa6e424f76678596c guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/x86_64-w64-mingw32/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-win64-unsigned.tar.gz
e56ae4f609d4e6a3ca5917a4bb763c91012ece2d236d6b62a666358791e43525 guix-build-cc61bc2e19b1/output/x86_64-w64-mingw32/bitcoin-cc61bc2e19b1-win64.zip
```
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
lgtm ACK cc61bc2e19b1c8cb32778ef42746d32b02cc2671
laanwj:
Concept and code review ACK cc61bc2e19b1c8cb32778ef42746d32b02cc2671
Tree-SHA512: 3da6aba44eef3f864fcbe897db1faa964923756e68c6a713e444b5d01c6d3542c3d7ca26678760e81a7a9e3cd40bd90622d0a7b697c27166817ba4f1023661ef
705c1f0648c72aa97e0ee699ff9a3da23fc9bd61 qt, refactor: Fix 'buttonClicked is deprecated' warnings (Hennadii Stepanov)
c2f4e5ea1d6f01713ac69aaf6018884028aa55bd qt, refactor: Fix 'split is deprecated' warnings (Hennadii Stepanov)
8e12d6996116e786e928077b22d9f47cee27319e qt, refactor: Fix 'QFlags is deprecated' warnings (Hennadii Stepanov)
fa5749c805878304c107bcae0ae5ffa401dc7c4d qt, refactor: Fix 'pixmap is deprecated' warnings (Hennadii Stepanov)
b02264cb5dfcef50eec8a6346471cbaa25370e00 qt, refactor: Fix 'QDateTime is deprecated' warnings (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
[What's New in Qt 5.15](https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/whatsnew515.html#deprecated-modules):
> To help preparing for the transition to Qt 6, numerous classes and member functions that will be removed from Qt 6.0 have been marked as deprecated in the Qt 5.15 release.
Fixes#36
ACKs for top commit:
jonasschnelli:
utACK 705c1f0648c72aa97e0ee699ff9a3da23fc9bd61
promag:
Tested ACK 705c1f0648c72aa97e0ee699ff9a3da23fc9bd61 on macos with Apple clang version 11.0.3 (clang-1103.0.32.62) and brew qt 5.15.1.
Tree-SHA512: 29e00535b4583ceec0dfb29612e86ee29bdea13651b548c6d22167917a4a10464af49160a12b05151030699f690f437ebb9c4ae9f130f66a722415222165b44f
86b1ab64b1a5b56518787ef16ea54ddbbc97d83e refactor: Replace deprecated Qt::SystemLocale{Short,Long}Date (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
As all deprecated warning in Qt 5.15.0 were eliminated in #46, Qt 5.15.1 introduced another one that is fixed in this PR.
Required for https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20182.
Details in Qt docs:
- https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qdatetime.html#toString-1
- https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qdate.html#toString-1
ACKs for top commit:
jarolrod:
Tested ACK 86b1ab6 on MacOS 10.15.7 and Arch Linux both with Qt 5.15.1
jonasschnelli:
Tested ACK 86b1ab64b1a5b56518787ef16ea54ddbbc97d83e
Tree-SHA512: 1dbba8ee70c895bf58317172a9901cdbe5503b1d6258f51caaae88d88d332d9fbd4697c995192d31e3618ddfd532c5f5881289b3af1184422e5a9263a1224115
30cc1c6609ad7868f73e88afe0b0233d395ec08c refactor: Drop `owns_lock()` call (Hennadii Stepanov)
bff4e068b69edd40a00466156f860bde2df29268 refactor: Do not discard `try_lock()` return value (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
Microsoft's C++ Standard Library uses the `[[nodiscard]]` attribute for `try_lock()`.
See: https://github.com/microsoft/STL/blob/main/stl/inc/mutex
This change allows to drop the current suppression for the warning C4838 and helps to prevent the upcoming warning C4858.
See: 539c26c923Fixesbitcoin/bitcoin#26017.
Split from bitcoin/bitcoin#25819.
ACKs for top commit:
vasild:
ACK 30cc1c6609ad7868f73e88afe0b0233d395ec08c
Tree-SHA512: ce17404e1c78af4f763129753caf8e5a0e1c91ba398778fe912f9fcc56a847e8112460d1a1a35bf905a593b7d8e0b16c6b099ad74976b67dca5f4f3eda6ff621
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Having `<protxhash> is not connected to us, badConnection=0` doesn't
help when we don't expect it to be connected 🤷♂️
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
MNs don't really vote NO on triggers that do not match their local
candidates because:
1. they bail out too early when they see that they are not the payee
2. the hash for objects to vote NO on was picked incorrectly.
## What was done?
Moved voting out of `CreateGovernanceTrigger` and into its own
`VoteGovernanceTriggers`. Refactored related code to use `optional`
while at it, dropped useless/misleading `IsValid()` call. Added some
safety belts, logging, tests.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run tests.
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
reindexed
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
There's too much spamming log items related to new v20 features: credit
pool, asset locks, EHF manager, EHF Signaling for MN_RR.
Some logs are still spamming after this PR but related code is not
changed here https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5658
## What was done?
- Removed some log items, tidy-up other.
- logs that supposed to appear for each block are moved to new
categories EHF and CREDITPOOL
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests, reviewed log output
## Breaking Changes
N/A
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
No need to log things like `punished MN <protxhash>, penalty 515->515
(max=515)`
(check block 907818 on testnet, it has a lot of these)
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
n/a
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
It fixes this and similar warnings:
```
qt/test/trafficgraphdatatests.cpp:145:23: warning: ‘int qrand()’ is deprecated: use QRandomGenerator instead [-Wdeprecated-declarations]
145 | int in = qrand() % 1000;
| ~~~~~^~
```
Call of `qsrand` is not needed because QRandomGenerator is already randomly initialized
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
1. inactive MNs (`activeMasternodeInfo.proTxHash.IsNull() == true`)
should simply drop duplicated connections like regular nodes do.
2. we should not instantly drop inbound (potentially probe) connections
(even if `DeterministicOutboundConnection` results would say so), should
let `CMasternodeUtils::DoMaintenance` do that. This way a probing peer
should have a chance to get our `mnauth` back and mark this attempt as a
success. This should hopefully reduce the number of random unexplained
pose-punishments.
3. probe nodes must be disconnected ignoring everything else, quorum
nodes and relay members connect using their own logic which should not
interfere with the way probe nodes work. (meaningful changes only:
9134d964a0)
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
as a side-effect `activeMasternodeInfoCs` lock is moved out of
`ForEachNode`
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, run a testnet mn
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
fixes#5666
kudos to @tinshen for discovering the issue 👍
## What was done?
add missing logic in FundTransaction
## How Has This Been Tested?
implement/run tests, test rpc manually
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Renamed `bitcoin` to `coins` in help texts of mining RPCs.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
no
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
fa74e726c414f5f7a1e63126a69463491f66e0ec refactor: Make FEELER_SLEEP_WINDOW type safe (std::chrono) (MacroFake)
fa3b3cb9b5d944d34b1d5ac3e102ac333482a475 Expose underlying clock in CThreadInterrupt (MacroFake)
Pull request description:
This gets rid of the `value*1000` manual conversion.
ACKs for top commit:
naumenkogs:
utACK fa74e726c414f5f7a1e63126a69463491f66e0ec
dergoegge:
Code review ACK fa74e726c414f5f7a1e63126a69463491f66e0ec
Tree-SHA512: 90409c05c25f0dd2f1c4dead78f707ebfd78b7d84ea4db9fcefd9c4958a1a3338ac657cd9e99eb8b47d52d4485fa3c947dce4ee1559fb56ae65878685e1ed9a3
92b35aba224ad4440f3ea6c01c841596a6a3d6f4 index, refactor: Change sync variables to use `std::chrono::steady_clock` (w0xlt)
Pull request description:
This PR refactors the sync variables to use `std::chrono::steady_clock` as it is best suitable for measuring intervals.
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
utACK 92b35aba224ad4440f3ea6c01c841596a6a3d6f4
ajtowns:
ACK 92b35aba224ad4440f3ea6c01c841596a6a3d6f4 - code review only
Tree-SHA512: cd4bafde47b30beb88c0aac247e41b4dced2ff2845c67a7043619da058dcff4f84374a7c704a698f3055c888d076d25503c2f38ace8fbc5456f624e0efe1e188
4446ef0a549d567a88d82b606aa8c47f115673f9 build: remove support for weak linking getauxval() (fanquake)
e56100c5b4daf2285dde9807bf654599aa19bd6b build: remove arm includes from getauxval() check (fanquake)
Pull request description:
It was [pointed out in #23030](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23030#issuecomment-922893367) that we might be able to get rid of our weak linking of [`getauxval()`](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/getauxval.3.html) (`HAVE_WEAK_GETAUXVAL`) entirely, with only Android being a potential holdout:
> I wonder if it's time to get rid of HAVE_WEAK_GETAUXVAL. I think it's confusing. Either we build against a C library that has this functionality, or not. We don't do this weak linking thing for any other symbols and recently got rid of the other glibc backwards compatibility stuff.
> Unless there is still a current platform that really needs it (Android?), I'd prefer to remove it from the build system, it has caused enough issues.
After looking at Android further, it would seem that given we are moving to using `std::filesystem`, which [requires NDK version 22 and later](https://github.com/android/ndk/wiki/Changelog-r22), and `getauxval` has been available in the since [API version 18](https://developer.android.com/ndk/guides/cpu-features#features_using_libcs_getauxval3), that shouldn't really be an issue. Support for API levels < 19 will be dropped with the NDK 24 release, and according to [one website](https://apilevels.com/), supporting API level 18+ will cover ~99% of devices. Note that in the CI we currently build with NDK version 22 and API level 28.
The other change in this PR is removing the include of headers for ARM intrinsics, from the check for strong `getauxval()` support in configure, as they shouldn't be needed. Including these headers also meant that the check would basically only succeed when building for ARM. This would be an issue if we remove weak linking, as we wouldn't detect `getauxval()` as supported on other platforms. Note that we also use `getauxval()` in our RNG when it's available.
I've checked that with these changes we detect support for strong `getauxval()` on Alpine (muslibc). On Linux, previously we'd be detecting support for weak getauxval(), now we detect strong support. Note that we already require glibc 2.17, and `getauxval()` was introduced in `2.16`.
This is an alternative / supersedes #23030.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review and tested ACK 4446ef0a549d567a88d82b606aa8c47f115673f9
Tree-SHA512: 5f2a9e9cc2d63bddab73f0dcb169d4d6beda74622af82bc0439722f1189f81d052e2fc1eaf27056a7a606320d5ddc4c11075f0d051dd93d77c5e1c15337f354a
fea75ad3caa29972db32d3ce7e0fe125ec77a0eb refactor: Drop `boost/algorithm/string/replace.hpp` dependency (Hennadii Stepanov)
857526e8cbb0847a865e9c2509425960d458f535 test: Add test case for `ReplaceAll()` function (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
A new implementation of the `ReplaceAll()` seems enough for all of our purposes.
ACKs for top commit:
adam2k:
ACK Tested fea75ad3caa29972db32d3ce7e0fe125ec77a0eb
theStack:
Code-review ACK fea75ad3caa29972db32d3ce7e0fe125ec77a0eb
Tree-SHA512: dacfffc9d2bd1fb9f034baf8c045b1e8657b766db2f0a7f8ef7e25ee6cd888f315b0124c54aba7a29ae59186b176ef9868a8b709dc995ea215c6b4ce58e174d9
# Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Fixed some clang-tidy warnings
## What was done?
used more if-init
## How Has This Been Tested?
built
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Noticed a couple of things while I was trying to figure out if an
[issue](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5627#discussion_r1367153099)
@knst mentioned in #5627 could actually exist:
1. `GetPaymentsLimit()` won't work correctly with historical blocks rn.
We don't use it that way internally but it could be done via rpc and it
should provide correct results.
2. superblock params on regtest are too small to test them properly
3. because of (2) and a huge v20 activation window (comparing to sb
params) `feature_governance.py` doesn't test v20 switching states.
There's also no "sb on v20 activation block" test.
~NOTE: based on #5639 atm~
## What was done?
fix it, pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Small dip0024 related cleanups, regtest only.
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
As discovered during platform testing by @shumkov , it seems as the
chain can halt in miner if somehow mempool would have several
transactions that are somehow invalid (maybe too low fee or something
else). They can't be mined, but miner can't prepare a valid block with
correct Credit Pool amount.
It is indeed can happen although I haven't reproduced it with functional
tests at the moment 🤷♂️
## What was done?
Refactored and simplified a logic of Credit Pool amount of validation
and added one more layer of validation: after all transaction are
actually added to block by miner, it is recalculated one more time.
Also used correct `pindexPrev` instead Tip() for EHF signals.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Before this changes platform failed with this error and chain halt:
```
2023-10-20T06:20:16Z (mocktime: 2023-10-20T06:28:29Z) ERROR: ConnectBlock(DASH): CheckCreditPoolDiffForBlock for block 9d635e1fd0d7a8a5bf16ce158d3a39cbf903864bb6d671769836ea7db6055230 failed with bad-cbtx-asse locked-amount
```
With changes from this PR platform is generate the asset-lock
transactions that are included to block and chain is not halt:
```
2023-10-27T10:45:37Z (mocktime: 2023-10-27T14:37:22Z) GetCreditPoolDiffForBlock: CCreditPool is CCreditPool(locked=32100015, currentLimit=32100015)
```
unit/functional tests are succeed.
## Breaking Changes
N/A; no consensus rules are changed
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
935acdcc79d1dc5ac04a83b92e5919ddbfa29329 refactor: modernize the implementation of uint256.* (pasta)
Pull request description:
- Constructors of uint256 to utilize Span instead of requiring a std::vector
- converts m_data into a std::array
- Prefers using `WIDTH` instead of `sizeof(m_data)`
- make all the things constexpr
- replace C style functions with c++ equivalents
- memset -> std::fill
This may also be replaced by std::memset, but I think that std::fill is more idiomatic of modern c++ and readable.
- memcpy -> std::copy
Note: In practice, implementations of std::copy avoid multiple assignments and use bulk copy functions such as std::memmove if the value type is TriviallyCopyable and the iterator types satisfy LegacyContiguousIterator. (https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/copy)
This could also likely be replaced by std::memcpy, but as said above, I believe the using std::copy is the more c++ way to do anything and is almost guaranteed to compile to the same asm
- memcmp -> std::memcmp
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 935acdcc79d1dc5ac04a83b92e5919ddbfa29329
hebasto:
Approach ACK 935acdcc79d1dc5ac04a83b92e5919ddbfa29329.
aureleoules:
reACK 935acdcc79d1dc5ac04a83b92e5919ddbfa29329
john-moffett:
ACK 935acdcc79d1dc5ac04a83b92e5919ddbfa29329
stickies-v:
Approach ACK 935acdcc7
Tree-SHA512: 4f1ba54ff2198eea0e505d41e73d552c84c60f6878d5c85a94a8ab57f39afc94ef8d79258e7afd01fa84ec2a99f4404bb877eecd671f65e1ee9273f3129fc650
04fee75bacb9ec3bceff1246ba6c8ed8a8759548 Use ReadLE64 in uint256::GetUint64() instead of duplicating logic (Pieter Wuille)
Pull request description:
No need to have a (naive) copy of the `ReadLE64` logic inside `uint256::GetUint64`, when we have an optimized function for exactly that.
ACKs for top commit:
davidgumberg:
ACK 04fee75bacb9ec3bceff1246ba6c8ed8a8759548
jonatack:
ACK 04fee75bacb9ec3bceff1246ba6c8ed8a8759548 review, this use of ReadLE64() is similar to the existing invocation by Num3072::Num3072(), sanity checked that before and after this change GetUint64() returns the same result (debug build, clang 13)
Tree-SHA512: 0fc2681536a18d82408411bcc6d5c6445fb96793fa43ff4021cd2933d46514c725318da35884f428d1799023921f33f8af091ef428ceb96a50866ac53a345356
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
This reverts #5636 and introduces 2 similar cmd-line/config params which
are made specifically for regtest. Turned out Platform guys actually
still need smth like that for local testing #5259.
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests but we don't really have(/need?) tests for this.
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
cc @shumkov
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
sb produced by sentinel:
>"DataString": ... \"payment_amounts\": \"20.00000000|20.00000000\", ...
>...
> "YesCount": 83,
sb produced by core:
>"DataString": ... \"payment_amounts\": \"20.00|20.00\", ...
> "YesCount": 13,
These 2 triggers are for the same block (900552), proposal hashes and
addresses are also the same but the difference in `payment_amounts`
format makes it look like a different trigger for core and this creates
a race.
## What was done?
Use `ValueFromAmount` instead of `FormatMoney` to avoid trimming
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
fix: possible assert call if nHeight in CDeterministicMNListDiff is
higher than Tip
Example of new log:
```
2023-09-28T17:35:50Z GetProjectedMNPayeesAtChainTip WARNING pindex is nullptr due to height=914160 chain height=914159
```
instead assert call:
```
...
#6 0x00007ffff7a33b86 in __assert_fail (assertion=0x55555783afd2 "pindex", file=0x5555577f2ed8 "llmq/utils.cpp", line=730,
function=0x5555577f2448 "bool llmq::utils::IsMNRewardReallocationActive(const CBlockIndex*)") at ./assert/assert.c:101
#7 0x0000555555ab7daf in llmq::utils::IsMNRewardReallocationActive (pindex=<optimized out>) at llmq/utils.cpp:730
#8 0x00005555559458ad in CDeterministicMNList::GetProjectedMNPayees (this=this@entry=0x7fffffffc690, pindex=0x0, nCount=<optimized out>, nCount@entry=2147483647)
at evo/deterministicmns.cpp:231
#9 0x000055555594614f in CDeterministicMNList::GetProjectedMNPayeesAtChainTip (this=this@entry=0x7fffffffc690, nCount=nCount@entry=2147483647) at evo/deterministicmns.cpp:216
#10 0x00005555558c9f51 in MasternodeList::updateDIP3List (this=this@entry=0x55555908cfd0) at qt/masternodelist.cpp:194
#11 0x00005555558ca9a0 in MasternodeList::updateDIP3ListScheduled (this=0x55555908cfd0) at qt/masternodelist.cpp:157
#12 0x000055555684a60f in void doActivate<false>(QObject*, int, void**) ()
#13 0x00005555568525b1 in QTimer::timerEvent(QTimerEvent*) ()
#14 0x0000555556844ce5 in QObject::event(QEvent*) ()
#15 0x0000555556ac3252 in QApplicationPrivate::notify_helper(QObject*, QEvent*) ()
#16 0x000055555681e6b8 in QCoreApplication::sendEvent(QObject*, QEvent*) ()
#17 0x000055555686de2a in QTimerInfoList::activateTimers() ()
#18 0x000055555686be84 in QEventDispatcherUNIX::processEvents(QFlags<QEventLoop::ProcessEventsFlag>) ()
#19 0x00005555569bf8a2 in QXcbUnixEventDispatcher::processEvents(QFlags<QEventLoop::ProcessEventsFlag>) ()
#20 0x000055555681caf6 in QEventLoop::exec(QFlags<QEventLoop::ProcessEventsFlag>) ()
#21 0x0000555556825f8a in QCoreApplication::exec() ()
...
```
## What was done?
ClientModel returns now a pair: MNList and CBlockIndex; so, we always
know the which one has been used even if current chain is switched.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run on my localhost from `c034ff0c2606142ba3e8894bc74f693b87374e5c` -
aborted with backtrace like above.
With both of commit - no assert more.
## Breaking Changes
N/A
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`gobject count all`
before:
>Governance Objects: 1195 (Proposals: 9, Triggers: 1186, Other: 0;
Erased: 1), Votes: 135064
after (in 10-ish minutes after gov sync is done):
>Governance Objects: 11 (Proposals: 9, Triggers: 2, Other: 0; Erased:
1), Votes: 702
I _think_ it happens when a node can't follow the right chain for some
reason but it keeps receiving triggers and votes from other nodes which
means triggers never expire on such node. This wouldn't be a problem for
us if we wouldn't reorg testnet/devnets from time to time. Once we reorg
the stuck node happily spams us with all the triggers it saved in the
meantime.
## What was done?
2 sb cycles into the future should be enough for all legit triggers,
drop the ones that have their height even higher
## How Has This Been Tested?
run a node, check rpc
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Dropped all changes made so far to be able to sync Testnet.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
Testnet syncing obviously
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Should not be 2 forks in one version
## What was done?
- Asset Unlock transactions (withdrawals) should be available only in
MN_RR fork
- MN_RR should not be auto-activated on Main net without intentional
release of code (and not by spork), but they are need on test net to
test platform.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests
## Breaking Changes
Yes (see "what was done")
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Implementation of accepted proposal:
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/expedite-60-20-20-reallocation
## What was done?
Activates changers brought in #5588 on `v20` hard fork instead of
`mn_rr`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests
## Breaking Changes
Again, Testnet sync is broken
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
When expecting a hard fork, we manually calculate activation heights.
## What was done?
Returning expected activation height for BIP9 softporks in `locked_in`
status in `getblockchaininfo` RPC.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
We went from milliseconds to microseconds for these silently in #5616🙈
## What was done?
make it milliseconds again
## How Has This Been Tested?
n/a
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
fabea6d404571d046365f4f083da3569d2cbf4f7 net: Run clang-format on protocol.h (MarcoFalke)
facdeea2b25ef36e37b6ada58ea390a72d11a4b2 net: Remove un-actionable TODO (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
The first commit removes a TODO that is infeasible to solve. Currently, most (de)serializable classes in Bitcoin Core have public members. For example `CMessageHeader`, `FlatFilePos`, `CBlock`, `CTransaction`, `CCoin`, ...
So either this TODO comment should apply to all classes or to none. Fix that discrepancy by removing it from the source code for now. If deemed important, the TODO can be discussed in a brainstorming issue later.
Also run clang format on the header file in a new commit. Happy to drop this commit if it is too controversial, but I think it is trivial to review and makes the workflow of developers using clang-format-diff easier.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK fabea6d404571d046365f4f083da3569d2cbf4f7
naumenkogs:
ACK fabea6d. Not sure why that TODO was there in the first place, but Marco's justification seems correct.
hebasto:
ACK fabea6d404571d046365f4f083da3569d2cbf4f7, agree with both changes: removing TODO and applying the `clang-format-diff.py`.
Tree-SHA512: b79ae07be27e5a40fc9f411a5e9ae91aecb2fdedbcbf74699614a1004f4ef816bf396903ec6c06eb1395fd83a2047620c7583acbaadfb8c4e613319a63062c3c
4444dbf4d5047dd1c92973f7167a74a0779e61a3 gui: Remove un-actionable TODO (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
With encryption turned on by default for all wallets in consideration (#18889), I believe that wallet decryption will not be implemented ever or at least any time soon. So remove that TODO comment for now. If deemed important, a brainstorming issue can be opened instead.
Also remove some TODOs in the RPC console, which I don't understand. Maybe the gui was meant to show the debug log interactively? In any case, if deemed important, this should be filed as a brainstorming feature request, so that trade-offs of different solutions can be discussed.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Thanks. ACK 4444dbf4d5047dd1c92973f7167a74a0779e61a3
achow101:
ACK 4444dbf4d5047dd1c92973f7167a74a0779e61a3
Tree-SHA512: f7ddb37a14178f575da5409ea1c34e34bde37d79b2b56eaaf606a069e2b91c9d7b734529f5c68664b2fa5aa831117c8d19cce823743671cd6c31b81d68b8c70c
fa32cc0682a0aa3420e6a11031721fcb6c50fa44 doc: Remove fee delta TODO from txmempool.cpp (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
This refactor request was added in commit eb306664e7, though it didn't explain why the refactor is needed and what the goal is. Given that this wasn't touched for more than 5 years, it doesn't seem critical. Generally, non-trivial `TODO`s make more sense as GitHub issues, so that they can be discussed and triaged more easily.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK fa32cc0682a0aa3420e6a11031721fcb6c50fa44
Tree-SHA512: 6629fef543e815136c82c38aa8ba2c4de68a5fe94c6954f2559e468f7e59052e02dd7c221d3b159be0314eaf0dbb18f74814297c58f76e2289c47e8d4f49be4e
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`FlushStateToDisk` log is misleading
before
```
FlushStateToDisk: write coins cache to disk (8564 coins, 1199kB) started
FlushStateToDisk: write coins cache to disk (8564 coins, 1199kB) completed (13.98s)
```
after
```
FlushStateToDisk: write coins cache to disk (8564 coins, 1199kB) started
FlushStateToDisk: write coins cache to disk (8564 coins, 1199kB) completed (0.00s)
FlushStateToDisk: write evodb cache to disk started
FlushStateToDisk: write evodb cache to disk completed (13.98s)
```
## What was done?
Make a separate scope and log output for evodb related part. Most of the
changes here are whitespaces, ignoring them reveals the actual changes,
see https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5632/files?w=1.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run a node, check logs
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
We should be testing from the very first v19 block, not from some random
one 100 blocks after
## What was done?
Implement that, make sure we start at v19 activation.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`make check`
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
there is no reason for devnet-only params to exist on regtest
## What was done?
remove them
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`GetAdjustedTime()` can be manipulated by our peers, we should avoid
using it for our internal data structures/logic.
## What was done?
Use `GetTime<T>()` instead, fix some includes while at it.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, run a node
## Breaking Changes
should be none
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
The bug was introduced in the original PR #5026 and refactored later
(which is good actually cause we shouldn't mix refactoring and
bug-fixing :) )
## What was done?
fix conditions, add tests
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_asset_locks.py`
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
fix: double lock of deterministicMNManager->cs
Logs:
```
node1 2023-10-21T16:46:03.990302Z (mocktime: 2014-12-04T17:33:19Z) [httpworker.1] DOUBLE LOCK DETECTED
node1 2023-10-21T16:46:03.990322Z (mocktime: 2014-12-04T17:33:19Z) [httpworker.1] Lock order:
node1 2023-10-21T16:46:03.990339Z (mocktime: 2014-12-04T17:33:19Z) [httpworker.1] 'cs_main' in miner.cpp:129 (in thread 'httpworker.1')
node1 2023-10-21T16:46:03.990353Z (mocktime: 2014-12-04T17:33:19Z) [httpworker.1] 'm_mempool.cs' in miner.cpp:129 (in thread 'httpworker.1')
node1 2023-10-21T16:46:03.990366Z (mocktime: 2014-12-04T17:33:19Z) [httpworker.1] (*) 'deterministicMNManager->cs' in evo/cbtx.cpp:114 (in thread 'httpworker.1')
node1 2023-10-21T16:46:03.990439Z (mocktime: 2014-12-04T17:33:19Z) [httpworker.1] (*) 'cs' in ./evo/deterministicmns.h:614 (in thread 'httpworker.1')
node1 2023-10-21T16:46:04.003619Z (mocktime: 2014-12-04T17:33:19Z) [httpworker.1] Posix Signal: Aborted
No debug information available for stacktrace. You should add debug information and then run:
dashd -printcrashinfo=bvcgc43iinzgc43ijfxgm3ybaacwiyltnbsbkudponuxqictnftw4ylmhiqecytpoj2gkzaphcbzaaaaaaaaayeurhimekiaaav6ldwqyiuqaafwsoe5bqrjaaahz6eh2dbcsaaakhhzaaaaaaaaanreseaaaaaaacgguliaaaaaaadyauwqaaaaaaacp3daaaaaaaaamxigcaaaaaaablpulyaaaaaaadovy3yaaaaaaahj7vbaaaaaaaadnbsdaaaaaaaaaa======
```
Part of backtrace:
```
#9 UniqueLock<AnnotatedMixin<std::mutex>, std::unique_lock<std::mutex> >::UniqueLock (fTry=false, nLine=615, pszFile=0x55a9f71a3710 "./evo/deterministicmns.h",
pszName=0x55a9f719caff "cs", mutexIn=..., this=0x7f7e1e71b250) at ./sync.h:164
#10 CDeterministicMNManager::GetListForBlock (this=0x55a9f84d06b0, pindex=0x7f7db03621c0) at ./evo/deterministicmns.h:615
#11 0x000055a9f6612258 in llmq::utils::ComputeQuorumMembersByQuarterRotation (pCycleQuorumBaseBlockIndex=0x7f7db03a6930, llmqParams=...) at /usr/include/c++/12/bits/unique_ptr.h:191
#12 llmq::utils::GetAllQuorumMembers (llmqType=<optimized out>, pQuorumBaseBlockIndex=0x7f7db0359bc0, reset_cache=reset_cache@entry=false) at llmq/utils.cpp:150
#13 0x000055a9f694d957 in CDeterministicMNManager::HandleQuorumCommitment (qc=..., pQuorumBaseBlockIndex=<optimized out>, mnList=..., debugLogs=debugLogs@entry=false)
at evo/deterministicmns.cpp:989
#14 0x000055a9f695c455 in CDeterministicMNManager::BuildNewListFromBlock (this=<optimized out>, block=..., pindexPrev=pindexPrev@entry=0x7f7db03c1ac0, state=..., view=...,
mnListRet=..., debugLogs=false) at evo/deterministicmns.cpp:918
#15 0x000055a9f692e7cd in CalcCbTxMerkleRootMNList (block=..., pindexPrev=pindexPrev@entry=0x7f7db03c1ac0, merkleRootRet=..., state=..., view=...)
at /usr/include/c++/12/bits/unique_ptr.h:191
#16 0x000055a9f6a352ed in BlockAssembler::CreateNewBlock (this=this@entry=0x7f7e1e71f0b0, scriptPubKeyIn=...) at ./validation.h:649
#17 0x000055a9f6771c49 in generateBlocks (chainman=..., mempool=..., evodb=..., llmq_ctx=..., coinbase_script=..., nGenerate=10, nMaxTries=<optimized out>) at rpc/mining.cpp:167
#18 0x000055a9f677a496 in generatetoaddress (request=...) at /usr/include/c++/12/bits/unique_ptr.h:191
#19 0x000055a9f671ea02 in CRPCCommand::CRPCCommand(char const*, char const*, UniValue (*)(JSONRPCRequest const&), std::initializer_list<char const*>)::{lambda(JSONRPCRequest const&, UniValue&, bool)#1}::operator()(JSONRPCRequest const&, UniValue&, bool) const (__closure=<optimized out>, result=..., request=...) at ./rpc/server.h:120
```
## What was done?
`CDeterministicMNManager::BuildNewListFromBlock` doesn't require `cs`
lock anymore
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests
## Breaking Changes
N/A
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Current implementation relies either on asserts or sometimes checks then
returning a special value; In the case of asserts (or no assert where we
use the value without checks) it'd be better to make it explicit to
function caller that the ptr must be not_null; otherwise gsl::not_null
will call terminate.
See
https://github.com/microsoft/GSL/blob/main/docs/headers.md#user-content-H-pointers-not_null
and
https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines#Rf-nullptr
I'm interested in a conceptual review; specifically on if this is
beneficial over just converting these ptrs to be a reference?
## What was done?
*Partial* implementation on using gsl::not_null in dash code
## How Has This Been Tested?
Building
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Signed-off-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
To make configuring devnets more error-prune and config file shorter
## What was done?
Updated default LLMQ parameters on devnet from 50_60, 60_75, 100_67 to
`LLMQ_DEVNET` and `LLMQ_DEVNET_PLATFORM`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
not tested yet; would be tested on devnets later with next
devnet/release
## Breaking Changes
n/a for non-dev-nets; for dev-net other default quorum is used.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
By default consensus for devnet if 50_60 that is way too much:
```
consensus.llmqTypeMnhf = Consensus::LLMQType::LLMQ_50_60;
```
So, `quorum list` on devnet-ouzo is empty:
```
{
"llmq_50_60": [
],
```
## What was done?
Adds new -llmqmnhf param for devnet to change quorum params dynamically.
## How Has This Been Tested?
<not tested>
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
#5597 follow-up
## What was done?
add missing filed description
## How Has This Been Tested?
`help getblockchaininfo`
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
(over a 13 minute segment of reindex) boost time took about 9+9+9 =
27%!! of total cycles!!!
During the same time segment, GetTimeMicros() used roughly 0.2% of total
cycles! (even though it's used a lot more)
Over my entire roughly 40 minute profiling session, boost time appears
to use about 6% of cycles; still too much, while GetTimeMicros used
about 0.4%
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Now that v19 is buried we can enforce basic bls scheme usage in
governance and coinjoin and drop some extra code we used for backwards
compatibility.
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, sync and mix on testnet
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
It makes more sense for DecreaseScores to be inside of the MNList itself
imo
## What was done?
Refactored as such
## How Has This Been Tested?
Reindexed
I had originally expected some performance improvements due to the
removal of `GetMN` but in my benchmarking I didn't see any noticeable
perf changes. I do still think the removal of `GetMN` and using a
shared_ptr the whole time is better as it removes the chance of the
master node disappearing from the list (which would have previously
thrown, but is now impossible).
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Implementation EHF mechanism, part 4. Previous changes are:
- https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/4577
- https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5505
- https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5469
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently MN_RR is activated automatically by soft-fork activation after
v20 is activated.
It is not flexible enough, because platform may not be released by that
time yet or in opposite it can be too long to wait.
Also, any signal of EHF requires manual actions from MN owners to sign
EHF signal - it is automated here.
## What was done?
New spork `SPORK_24_MN_RR_READY`; new EHF manager that sign EHF signals
semi-automatically without manual actions; and send transaction with EHF
signal when signal is signed to network.
Updated rpc `getblockchaininfo` to return information about of EHF
activated forks.
Fixed function `IsTxSafeForMining` in chainlock's handler to skip
transactions without inputs (empty `vin`).
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests. Some tests have been updated due to new way
of MN_RR activation: `feature_asset_locks.py`, `feature_mnehf.py`,
`feature_llmq_evo.py` and unit test `block_reward_reallocation_tests`.
## Breaking Changes
New way of MN_RR activation.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Calculation of `platformReward` should ignore fees and rely only on
Block subsidy.
cc @QuantumExplorer
## What was done?
From now on, the following formula is applied:
```
blockReward = blockSubsidy + feeReward
masternodeReward = masternodeShare(blockSubsidy)
platformReward = platformShare(masternodeReward)
masternodeReward += masternodeShare(feeReward)
```
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
`plaftormReward` differs in networks where `mn_rr` is already active
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently, the `nSubsidyBase` calculation relies on difficulty. This
leads to variable Block Subsidity.
When Platform will be live, it would constantly require blocks
difficulty in order to calculate the `platformReward` (which relies on
Block Subsidy)
cc @QuantumExplorer
## What was done?
Starting from v20 activation, `nSubsidyBase` will no longer rely on
difficulty and will be constant to 5.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
Block rewards will differ.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Signature for withdrawal (asset unlock) transaction should be validated
against platform quorum (100_67) but not same as currently against EHF
quorum (400_85).
## What was done?
Updates type of quorum in chainparams for Asset Unlock (withdrawal)
transactions to same as platform's quorum.
It is first part of changes to fix devnet, testnet and mainnet. For
regnet is still used incorrect quorum due to non-trivial changes in
functional test `feature_assetlocks.py`; these changes would be provided
in next PR.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional test.
## Breaking Changes
Yes, quorum for validation of Asset Unlock (withdrawal) transaction is
changed.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
this change saw a ~38% performance improvement in header sync reindex
reproduce via `time ./src/qt/dash-qt --nowallet --testnet --reindex
--stopatheight=5`
On Develop this took average of 1:48 to finish, on this branch it took
1:07
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Slow header / block validation
## What was done?
Pass around cached block hash
## How Has This Been Tested?
Reindexed testnet
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Since `mn_rr` is already active on Testnet, because of #5588, syncing
from develop is broken.
## What was done?
Temporary disabled changes of #5588 for Testnet.
This should be dropped when Testnet will be re-organised for Platform.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Syncing Testnet
## 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)_
## 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)_
## 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)_
