that's a result of:
contrib/devtools/copyright_header.py update ./
it is not scripted diff, because it works differentlly on my localhost and in CI:
CI doesn't want to use git commit date which is mocked to 30th Dec of 2023
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`develop` can't sync from genesis on mainnet,
b8a086d5e7
broke it.
#5790 follow-up
## What was done?
Revive the old logic but using hardcoded block heights instead of
scanning via quorum manager.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Synced on mainnet/testnet, CI is happy
https://gitlab.com/UdjinM6/dash/-/pipelines/1148980046.
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] 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)_
01e283068b9e6214f2d77a2f772a4244ebfe2274 [net] Remove unnecessary default args on CNode constructor (Amiti Uttarwar)
bc5d65b3ca41eebb1738fdda4451d1466e77772e [refactor] Remove IsOutboundDisconnectionCandidate (Amiti Uttarwar)
2f2e13b6c2c8741ca9d825eaaef736ede484bc85 [net/refactor] Simplify multiple-connection checks (Amiti Uttarwar)
7f7b83deb2427599c129f4ff581d4d045461e459 [net/refactor] Rework ThreadOpenConnections logic (Amiti Uttarwar)
35839e963bf61d2da0d12f5b8cea74ac0e0fbd7b [net] Fix bug where AddrFetch connections would be counted as outbound full relay (Amiti Uttarwar)
4972c21b671ff73f13a1b5053338b6abbdb471b5 [net/refactor] Clarify logic for selecting connections in ThreadOpenConnections (Amiti Uttarwar)
60156f5fc40d56bb532278f16ce632c5a8b8035e [net/refactor] Remove fInbound flag from CNode (Amiti Uttarwar)
7b322df6296609570e368e5f326979279041c11f [net/refactor] Remove m_addr_fetch member var from CNode (Amiti Uttarwar)
14923422b08ac4b21b35c426bf0e1b9e7c97983b [net/refactor] Remove fFeeler flag from CNode (Amiti Uttarwar)
49efac5cae7333c6700d9b737d09fae0f3f4d7fa [net/refactor] Remove m_manual_connection flag from CNode (Amiti Uttarwar)
d3698b5ee309cf0f0cdfb286d6b30a256d7deae5 [net/refactor] Add connection type as a member var to CNode (Amiti Uttarwar)
46578c03e92a55925308363ccdad04dcfc820d96 [doc] Describe different connection types (Amiti Uttarwar)
442abae2bac7bff85886143df01e14215532b974 [net/refactor] Add AddrFetch connections to ConnectionType enum (Amiti Uttarwar)
af59feb05235ecb85ec9d75b09c66e71268c9889 [net/refactor] Extract m_addr_known logic from initializer list (Amiti Uttarwar)
e1bc29812ddf1d946bc5acca406a7ed2dca064a6 [net/refactor] Add block relay only connections to ConnectionType enum (Amiti Uttarwar)
0e52a659a2de915fc3dce37fc8fac39be1c8b6fa [net/refactor] Add feeler connections to ConnectionType enum (Amiti Uttarwar)
1521c47438537e192230486dffcec0228a53878d [net/refactor] Add manual connections to ConnectionType enum (Amiti Uttarwar)
26304b4100201754fb32440bec3e3b78cd3f0e6d [net/refactor] Introduce an enum to distinguish type of connection (Amiti Uttarwar)
3f1b7140e95d0f8f958cb35f31c3d964c57e484d scripted-diff: Rename OneShot to AddrFetch (Amiti Uttarwar)
Pull request description:
**This is part 1 of #19315, which enables the ability to test `outbound` and `block-relay-only` connections from the functional tests.** Please see that PR for more information of overall functionality.
**This PR simplifies how we manage different connection types.** It introduces an enum with the various types of connections so we can explicitly define the connection type. The existing system relies on a series of independent flags, then has asserts scattered around to ensure that conflicting flags are not enabled at the same time. I find this approach to be both brittle and confusing. While making these changes, I found a small bug due to the silent assumptions.
This PR also proposes a rename from `OneShot` to `AddrFetch`. I find the name `OneShot` to be very confusing, especially when we also have `onetry` manual connections. Everyone I've talked to offline has agreed that the name is confusing, so I propose a potential alternative. I think this is a good opportunity for a rename since I'm creating an enum to explicitly define the connection types.
(some context for the unfamiliar: `oneshot` or `addrfetch` connections are short-lived connections created on startup. They connect to the seed peers, send a `getaddr` to solicit addresses, then close the connection.)
Overview of this PR:
* rename `oneshot` to `addrfetch`
* introduce `ConnectionType` enum
* one by one, add different connection types to the enum
* expose the `conn_type` on CNode, and use this to reduce reliance on flags (& asserts)
* fix the bug in counting different type of connections
* some additional cleanup to simplify logic and make expectations explicit/inclusive rather than implicit/exclusive.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
utACK 01e283068b9e6214f2d77a2f772a4244ebfe2274
laanwj:
Code review ACK 01e283068b9e6214f2d77a2f772a4244ebfe2274, the commits are pretty straightforward to follow, and I think this is a move in the right direction overall
vasild:
ACK 01e283068
sdaftuar:
ACK 01e283068b9e6214f2d77a2f772a4244ebfe2274.
fanquake:
ACK 01e283068b9e6214f2d77a2f772a4244ebfe2274 - I don't have as much experience with the networking code but these changes look fairly straight forward, the new code seems more robust/understandable and the additional documentation is great. I'm glad that a followup branch is already underway. There might be some more review comments here later today, so keep an eye on the discussion, however I'm going to merge this now.
jb55:
wow this code was messy before... ACK 01e283068b9e6214f2d77a2f772a4244ebfe2274
Tree-SHA512: 7bb644a6ed5849913d777ebc2ff89133ca0fbef680355a9a344e07496a979e6f9ff21a958e8eea93dcd7d5c343682b0c7174b1a3de380a4247eaae73da436e15
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Asset Unlock tx uses platform's quorum on devnets, testnet, mainnet, but
still quorum type "Test (100)" on Reg Tests
That's part II PR, prior work is here:
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5618
## What was done?
- Removed `consensus.llmqTypeAssetLocks` which has been kept only for
RegTest - use `consensus.llmqTypePlatform` instead.
- Functional test `feature_asset_locks.py` uses `llmq_type_test = 106`
instead `llmq_type_test = 100` for asset unlock tx
- there's 4 MNs + 3 evo nodes instead 3 MNs as before: evo nodes
requires to have IS to be active
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests
## Breaking Changes
Asset Unlock tx uses correct quorum "106 llmq_test_platform" on reg test
instead "100 llmq_test"
## 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
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
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
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
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
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)_
## 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Set start time of signaling for v29 and mn_rr for Testnet at Friday,
September 1, 2023 0:00:00
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## 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
Since #5525, MNs during the maturity window, will propose new triggers.
In `CGovernanceManager::CreateSuperblockCandidate`, SuperBlock creation
is skipped when the bellow check is true:
`if (nHeight % Params().GetConsensus().nSuperblockCycle <
Params().GetConsensus().nSuperblockCycle -
Params().GetConsensus().nSuperblockMaturityWindow) return std::nullopt;
`
Hence, the value of `nSuperblockMaturityWindow` must be less than
`nSuperblockCycle` and greater than 0.
## What was done?
Changed `nSuperblockMaturityWindow` for devnet and Testnet chain
parameters to the following values:
`nSuperblockCycle` = 24
`nSuperblockMaturityWindow` = 8
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
fa4632c41714dfaa699bacc6a947d72668a4deef test: Move boost/stdlib includes last (MarcoFalke)
fa488f131fd4f5bab0d01376c5a5013306f1abcd scripted-diff: Bump copyright headers (MarcoFalke)
fac5c373006a9e4bcbb56843bb85f1aca4d87599 scripted-diff: Sort test includes (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
When writing tests, often includes need to be added or removed. Currently the list of includes is not sorted, so developers that write tests and have `clang-format` installed will either have an unrelated change (sorting) included in their commit or they will have to manually undo the sort.
This pull preempts both issues by just sorting all includes in one commit.
Please be aware that this is **NOT** a change to policy to enforce clang-format or any other developer guideline or process. Developers are free to use whatever tool they want, see also #18651.
Edit: Also includes a commit to bump the copyright headers, so that the touched files don't need to be touched again for that.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK fa4632c41714dfaa699bacc6a947d72668a4deef
jonatack:
ACK fa4632c41714dfaa, light review and sanity checks with gcc build and clang fuzz build
Tree-SHA512: 130a8d073a379ba556b1e64104d37c46b671425c0aef0ed725fd60156a95e8dc83fb6f0b5330b2f8152cf5daaf3983b4aca5e75812598f2626c39fd12b88b180
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Implementation of issue https://github.com/dashpay/dash-issues/issues/43
## What was done?
Masternode will try to create, sign and submit a Superblock (GovTrigger)
during the `nSuperblockMaturityWindow`.
## 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: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
4eca20d6f7d850492d331d89d1cdd77abb3c70c1 [doc] correct comment about ATMPW (glozow)
8fa74aeb5b96419c7d40b40f8e1e1269509278e2 [doc] correct comment in chainparams (glozow)
2f8272c2a4b6fa84c04dfeb4d751bb218f2d4c78 [doc] GetBestBlock() doesn't do nothing (gzhao408)
Pull request description:
Came across a few misleading comments, wanted to fix them
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
ACK 4eca20d6f7
MarcoFalke:
ACK 4eca20d6f7d850492d331d89d1cdd77abb3c70c1
laanwj:
Code review ACK 4eca20d6f7d850492d331d89d1cdd77abb3c70c1
Tree-SHA512: 5bef1f1e7703f304128cf0eb8945e139e031580c99062bbbe15bf4db8443c2ba5a8c65844833132e6646c8980c678fc1d2ab0c63e17105585d583570ee350fd0
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Since v19, Evo nodes are paid 4x blocks in a row.
This needs to be reverted when MN Reward Reallocation activates.
## What was done?
Starting from MN Reward Reallocation activation, Evo nodes are paid one
block in a row (like regular masternodes).
In addition, `nConsecutivePayments` isn't incremented anymore for Evo
nodes.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_llmq_hpmn.py` with MN Reward Reallocation activation.
## Breaking Changes
no
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: Konstantin Akimov <knstqq@gmail.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
This is an implementation of DIP0027 "Credit Asset Locks".
It's a mechanism to fluidly exchange between Dash and credits.
## What was done?
This pull request includes:
- Asset Lock transaction
- Asset Unlock transaction (withdrawal)
- Credit Pool in coinbase
- Unit tests for Asset Lock/Unlock tx
- New functional test `feature_asset_locks.py`
RPC: currently locked amount (credit pool) is available through rpc call
`getblock`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
There added new unit tests for basic checks of transaction validity
(asset lock/unlock).
Also added new functional test "feature_asset_locks.py" that cover
typical cases, but not all corner cases yet.
## Breaking Changes
This feature should be activated as hard-fork because:
- It adds 2 new special transaction and one of them [asset unlock tx]
requires update consensus rulels
- It adds new data in coinbase tx (credit pool)
## 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
**To release DIP 0027**
- [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
V19 is active on mainnet/testnet now, no need to check activation bits
anymore. This PR also bumps `MinBIP9WarningHeight` to
post-v19-activation height which should stop `unknown new rules
activated (versionbit 8)` warning from appearing.
## What was done?
Bury v19, bump `MinBIP9WarningHeight`
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run tests, reindex on mainnet/testnet.
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
During implementation #5469 (master node hard-fork) I noticed that some
parts of `CChainParams` are deprecated and can be removed.
## What was done?
1. removed methods from `CChainParams` that have no implementation at
all:
- UpdateSubsidyAndDiffParams
- UpdateLLMQChainLocks
- UpdateLLMQTestParams
- UpdateLLMQDevnetParams
2. removed method `BIP9CheckMasternodesUpgraded` from `CChainParams` and
a flag `check_mn_protocol` from `versionbitsinfo`.
(to follow-up dashpay/dash#2594)
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run functional/unit 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
bump chainparams to some post failed-v19-fork block on mainnet and post
recent-v19-fork block on testnet
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Same as #5428 but with a lower block number this time. This should let
us simply reorg testnet with 18.2.2 at deeper blocks instead of bumping
v19 testnet activation params for 19.2.
## 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
Having these above v19 forkpoint (850100) would result in v19.2 nodes
forking at the wrong height (864000) when reindexing without
`--assumevalid=<0 or some pre-v19 block height>`
## What was done?
Go back to pre-v19 block (850000) in chainparams
## How Has This Been Tested?
reindex
## 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
Mainnet chain has stalled. The root issue does not appear trivial to
resolve, as such the most optimal path is likely to delay the v19 hard
fork
## What was done?
Delayed HF
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
This will hard fork mainnet
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
