## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Missing docs
## What was done?
Added docs
## How Has This Been Tested?
In release of v19.1
## 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
- [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
we missed it in https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5385
## 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)_
e78aaf41f43d0e2ad78fa6d8dad61032c8ef73d0 [docs] Add release notes for burying bip 9 soft fork deployments (John Newbery)
8319e738f9f118025b332e4fa804d4c31e4113f4 [tests] Add coverage for the content of getblockchaininfo.softforks (James O'Beirne)
0328dcdcfcb56dc8918697716d7686be048ad0b3 [Consensus] Bury segwit deployment (John Newbery)
1c93b9b31c2ab7358f9d55f52dd46340397c906d [Consensus] Bury CSV deployment height (John Newbery)
3862e473f0cb71a762c0306b171b591341d58142 [rpc] Tidy up reporting of buried and ongoing softforks (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
This hardcodes CSV and segwit activation heights, similar to the BIP 90 buried deployments for BIPs 34, 65 and 66.
CSV and segwit have been active for over 18 months. Hardcoding the activation height is a code simplification, makes it easier to understand segwit activation status, and reduces technical debt.
This was originally attempted by jl2012 in #11398 and again by me in #12360.
ACKs for top commit:
ajtowns:
ACK e78aaf41f43d0e2ad78fa6d8dad61032c8ef73d0 ; checked diff to previous acked commit, checked tests still work
ariard:
ACK e78aaf4, check diff, run the tests again and successfully activated csv/segwit heights on mainnet as expected.
MarcoFalke:
ACK e78aaf41f43d0e2ad78fa6d8dad61032c8ef73d0 (still didn't check if the mainnet block heights are correct, but the code looks good now)
Tree-SHA512: 7e951829106e21a81725f7d3e236eddbb59349189740907bb47e33f5dbf95c43753ac1231f47ae7bee85c8c81b2146afcdfdc11deb1503947f23093a9c399912
ea9fcfd1305f92a7c3ca4d3c05951ceba1b6b05b doc: Drop protobuf stuff (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
This is a follow-up to #17165.
ACKs for top commit:
fanquake:
ACK ea9fcfd1305f92a7c3ca4d3c05951ceba1b6b05b - clicked the links and they seem to work.
Tree-SHA512: 0861bbac3a3ff781a413e15f5ed02c624bc15d572a001a53cd2fb9f7683456175f69e9d666b72f260abbb5114b67cefca9fada4d179c62384c90479534ae63d5
8925df86c4df16b1070343fef8e4d238f3cc3bd1 doc: update release notes (Jon Atack)
8bb405bbadf11391ccba7b334b4cfe66dc85b390 test: getaddressinfo labels purpose deprecation test (Jon Atack)
60aba1f2f11529add115d963d05599130288ae28 rpc: simplify getaddressinfo labels, deprecate previous behavior (Jon Atack)
7851f14ccf2bcd1e9b2ad48e5e08881be06d9d21 rpc: incorporate review feedback from PR 17283 (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
This PR builds on #17283 (now merged) and is followed by #17585.
It modifies the value returned by rpc getaddressinfo `labels` to an array of label name strings and deprecates the previous behavior of returning an array of JSON hash structures containing label `name` and address `purpose` key/value pairs.
before
```
"labels": [
{
"name": "DOUBLE SPEND",
"purpose": "receive"
}
```
after
```
"labels": [
"DOUBLE SPEND"
]
```
The deprecated behavior can be re-enabled by starting bitcoind with `-deprecatedrpc=labelspurpose`.
For context, see:
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17283#issuecomment-554458001
- http://www.erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/log-2019-12-13.html#l-425 (lines 425-427)
- http://www.erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/log-2019-11-22.html#l-622
Reviewers: This PR may be tested manually by building, then running bitcoind with and without the `-deprecatedrpc=labelspurpose` flag while verifying the rpc getaddressinfo help text and `labels` output.
Next steps: deprecate the rpc getaddressinfo `label` field (EDIT: done in #17585) and add support for multiple labels per address. This PR will unblock those.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
reACK 8925df8
promag:
Code review ACK 8925df86c4df16b1070343fef8e4d238f3cc3bd1.
meshcollider:
Code review ACK 8925df86c4df16b1070343fef8e4d238f3cc3bd1
Tree-SHA512: c2b717209996da32b6484de7bb8800e7048410f9ce6afdb3e02a6866bd4a8f2c730f905fca27b10b877b91cf407f546e69e8c4feb9cd934325a6c71c166bd438
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Feature requested by @QuantumExplorer and @iammadab.
This PR introduces `protx listdiff`: a more rich alternative of `protx
diff` RPC.
Currently, `protx diff` is returning data only required from SPV for SML
Coinbase MerkleMNListRoot calculation.
Platform team needed a similar RPC returning all the MNs data in order
to calculate the identities.
## 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
- [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)_
64645fa3e045ec30a57dbd416fcf66d4755f37c6 Release process: fix broken link to Guix building docs (Jeremy Rand)
Pull request description:
Not 100% sure whether this link was always broken or if the Guix docs renamed the heading at some point. Either way, seems good to fix it.
ACKs for top commit:
fanquake:
ACK 64645fa3e045ec30a57dbd416fcf66d4755f37c6
Tree-SHA512: 4932059fe583c0d27c70febf8f4dd8cffd3e15567359c5429d2691e221afc6da319bf43ebcd264ae0f98302e1eeb67ffd763d3d7d06ab1633913555ee7461643
8a4f0fcd3fc1a35c1482975114555b0fed75a1c0 Document faster throughput configuration (Alex Groce)
Pull request description:
This is a small change to the fuzzing doc that I think might help more people improve the corpus coverage, which I think is low partly just due to lack of long, low-overhead, runs, in addition to the need to apply a more diverse set of fuzzers and coverage notions.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK 8a4f0fcd3fc1a35c1482975114555b0fed75a1c0
tryphe:
ACK 8a4f0fcd3fc1a35c1482975114555b0fed75a1c0
Tree-SHA512: 0f1802f5c551d6ade7393cd2ac439ffd485786b17c4fd0f1a321f69f8ed0db1167ae04b5cae7bf904e89aba03e89b6d974bff564bfc6a78a571893719f323434
9075d13153ce06cd59a45644831ecc43126e1e82 [docs] Add release notes for removal of REJECT reasons (John Newbery)
04a2f326ec0f06fb4fce1c4f93500752f05dede8 [validation] Fix REJECT message comments (John Newbery)
e9d5a59e34ff2d538d8f5315efd9908bf24d0fdc [validation] Remove REJECT code from CValidationState (John Newbery)
0053e16714323c1694c834fdca74f064a1a33529 [logging] Don't log REJECT code when transaction is rejected (John Newbery)
a1a07cfe99fc8cee30ba5976dc36b47b1f6532ab [validation] Fix peer punishment for bad blocks (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
We no longer send BIP 61 REJECT messages, so there's no need to set
a REJECT code in the CValidationState object.
Note that there is a minor bug fix in p2p behaviour here. Because the
call to `MaybePunishNode()` in `PeerLogicValidation::BlockChecked()` only
previously happened if the REJECT code was > 0 and < `REJECT_INTERNAL`,
then there are cases were `MaybePunishNode()` can get called where it
wasn't previously:
- when `AcceptBlockHeader()` fails with `CACHED_INVALID`.
- when `AcceptBlockHeader()` fails with `BLOCK_MISSING_PREV`.
Note that `BlockChecked()` cannot fail with an 'internal' reject code. The
only internal reject code was `REJECT_HIGHFEE`, which was only set in
ATMP.
This reverts a minor bug introduced in 5d08c9c579.
ACKs for top commit:
ariard:
ACK 9075d13, changes since last reviewed are splitting them in separate commits to ease understanding and fix nits
fjahr:
ACK 9075d13153ce06cd59a45644831ecc43126e1e82, confirmed diff to last review was fixing nits in docs/comments.
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 9075d13153ce06cd59a45644831ecc43126e1e82. Only changes since last review are splitting the main commit and updating comments
Tree-SHA512: 58e8a1a4d4e6f156da5d29fb6ad6a62fc9c594bbfc6432b3252e962d0e9e10149bf3035185dc5320c46c09f3e49662bc2973ec759679c0f3412232087cb8a3a7
ea4cc3a7b36a9c77dbf0aff439da3ef0ea58e6e4 Truly decouple wallet from chainparams for -fallbackfee (Jorge Timón)
Pull request description:
Before it was 0 by default for main and 20000 for test and regtest.
Now it is 0 by default for all chains, thus there's no need to call Params().
Also now the default for main is properly documented.
Suggestion for release notes:
-fallbackfee was 0 (disabled) by default for the main chain, but 20000 by default for the test chains. Now it is 0 by default for all chains. Testnet and regtest users will have to add fallbackfee=20000 to their configuration if they weren't setting it and they want it to keep working like before.
Should I propose them to the wiki for the release notes or only after merge?
For more context, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16402#issuecomment-515701042
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK ea4cc3a7b36a9c77dbf0aff439da3ef0ea58e6e4
Tree-SHA512: fdfaba5d813da4221e405e0988bef44f3856d10f897a94f9614386d14b7716f4326ab8a6646e26d41ef3f4fa61b936191e216b1b605e9ab0520b0657fc162e6c
----
Co-Authored-By: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
d8f1ea7227260e51c340271fc9a43866799b8ac4 doc: describe in fuzzing.md how to reproduce a CI crash (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
Not sure if this is 100% accurate or missing any pertinent info, but I misremembered how to do this today and it seems like useful information to provide.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK d8f1ea7227260e51c340271fc9a43866799b8ac4
Tree-SHA512: 1b74e4187e6ea13b04eb03b3c6e2615c4eb18cc38cce215ad1645f8b135c5c31a243748eb313ccec05f1f62187ba33d550119acf07088968d2d2c1c09bc4c653
132cae44f2d031bdaa1e459b92ec89ad585dfc9f doc: Mention the flat directory structure for uploads (Andrew Chow)
fb17c99e35e72f3b21ec3b5473e84c21dc964776 guix: Don't include directory name in SHA256SUMS (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
The SHA256SUMS file can be used in a sha256sum -c command to verify downloaded binaries. However users are likely to download just a single file and not place this file in the correct directory relative to the SHA256SUMS file for the simple verification command to work. By not including the directory name in the SHA256SUMS file, it will be easier for users to verify downloaded binaries.
ACKs for top commit:
Zero-1729:
re-ACK 132cae44f2d031bdaa1e459b92ec89ad585dfc9f
fanquake:
ACK 132cae44f2d031bdaa1e459b92ec89ad585dfc9f
Tree-SHA512: c9ff416b8dfb2f3ceaf4d63afb84aac9fcaefbbf9092f9e095061b472884ec92c7a809e6530c7132a82cfe3ab115a7328e47994a412072e1d4feb26fc502c8c5
90b3e482e911fde73133a157c3b354471682275a release: Release with separate SHA256SUMS and sig files (Carl Dong)
Pull request description:
This allows us to:
- remove the rfc4880 EOL hacks, and
- release with a SHA256SUMS.asc file that's a combination of all signer signatures
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 90b3e482e911fde73133a157c3b354471682275a
laanwj:
Concept and code review ACK 90b3e482e911fde73133a157c3b354471682275a
Tree-SHA512: 5d5086063d303aa0cbd590e5fdf2ae8f555e25f4e43bf67545e33384449b990e94834c711622530ad0eb3dcc83f52746884a5081dadb0acff8dd799cfadafac7
fac4814106c796b8786dd90053513cc35142dfe5 doc/release-process: Add torrent creation details (Carl Dong)
5d24cc3d82dad6812f8370c3ccc7c2b5a6c12c11 guix/INSTALL: Guix installs init scripts in libdir (Carl Dong)
5da2ee49d5b44de803b671aedbdd14e5c1d71ea9 guix/INSTALL: Add coreutils/inotify-dir-recreate troubleshooting (Carl Dong)
318c60700b7bbb7ec09a29bf037e7c2787646be6 guix: Adapt release-process.md to new Guix process (Carl Dong)
fcab35b2292f9221eaba521740e8b3b2511a8b78 guix-attest: Produce and sign normalized documents (Carl Dong)
c2541fd0ca99481a5a792a8f2772925d64fb0491 guix: Overhaul README (Carl Dong)
46ce6ce3782dfbd8f9d26dc2ba0f284755e75f2d tree-wide: Rename gitian-keys to builder-keys (Carl Dong)
fc4f8449f34e32b0b9ac9d218d6c3264b02467ba guix: Update various check_tools lists (Carl Dong)
263220a85c1df218431fafbda07c8b23ccc4ce4d guix: Check for a sane services database (Carl Dong)
Pull request description:
Based on: #21462
Keeping the README in one file so that it's easy to search through. Will add more jumping links later so navigation is easier.
Current TODOs:
- [x] Shell installer option: prompt user to re-login for `/etc/profile.d` entry to be picked up
- [x] Binary tarball option: prompt user to create `/etc/profile.d` entry and re-login
- [x] Fanquake docker option: complete section
- [x] Arch Linux AUR option: prompt to start `guix-daemon-latest` unit after finishing "optional setup" section
- [x] Building from source option: Insert dependency tree diagram that I made
- [x] Building from source option: redo sectioning, kind of a mess right now
- [x] Optional setup: make clear which parts are only needed if building from source
- [x] Workaround 1 for GnuTLS: perhaps mention how to remove Guix build farm's key
- [x] Overall (after everything): Make the links work.
Note to self: wherever possible, tell user how to check that something is true rather than branching by installation option.
ACKs for top commit:
fanquake:
ACK fac4814106c796b8786dd90053513cc35142dfe5 - going to go ahead and merge this now. It's a lot of documentation, and could probably be nit-picked / improved further, however, that can continue over the next few weeks. I'm sure more (backportable) improvements / clarifications will be made while we progress through RCs towards a new release.
Tree-SHA512: dc46c0ecdfc67c7c7743ca26e4a603eb3f54adbf81be2f4c1f4c20577ebb84b5250b9c9ec89c0e9860337ab1c7cff94d7963c603287267deecfe1cd987fa070a
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/5294
## What was done?
Called `contrib/devtools/gen-manpages.sh` on top of new assume valid
values, see dash#5304
## How Has This Been Tested?
Reviewed only
## Breaking Changes
No breaking changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
defe48a51f4315f8cc607875a099981593c8cc39 doc: Update wallet files in files.md (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
This PR is a #19077 follow up, and it addresses the [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19077#discussion_r504805234):
> If need to update, there are two corrections that could be made:
>
> * Line 69 "Wallets are Berkeley DB (BDB) databases" is no longer true
>
> * Line 76 "Wallet lock file" should say "BDB wallet lock file"
ACKs for top commit:
RiccardoMasutti:
ACK defe48a
meshcollider:
ACK defe48a51f4315f8cc607875a099981593c8cc39
Tree-SHA512: 39939f86a9c7842bf06913998305dcbd6209585f1da0fe9c274bac0572eb8464e59176884dd9e2b91312f34efad40cdeb4085ec72c2a2c1b33d16b6ab505140c
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/5294
## What was done?
Called `contrib/devtools/gen-manpages.sh` on top of new assume valid
values, see dash#5304
## How Has This Been Tested?
Reviewed only
## Breaking Changes
No breaking changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
19a354b11f85a3c6c81ff83bf702bf7a40cf5046 Output a descriptor in createmultisig and addmultisigaddress (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
Give a descriptor from `createmultisig` and `addmultisigaddress`.
Extracted from #16528 with `addmultisgaddress` and tests added.
ACKs for top commit:
Sjors:
tACK 19a354b11f85a3c6c81ff83bf702bf7a40cf5046
MarcoFalke:
ACK 19a354b11f85a3c6c81ff83bf702bf7a40cf5046
promag:
Code review ACK 19a354b11f85a3c6c81ff83bf702bf7a40cf5046.
meshcollider:
utACK 19a354b11f85a3c6c81ff83bf702bf7a40cf5046
Tree-SHA512: e813125fbbc358ea8d45b1748de16a29a94efd83175b748fb8fa3b0bfc8e783ed36b6c554d84f5d4ead1ba252a83a3e937b6c3f75da7b8d3b4e55f94d6013771
4bb660be90a2811b53855bf1fd33a8dd9ba3db47 Add release note (Andrew Chow)
ed96b295d747738334459490c79b7360ab85aaf7 Update descriptors.md to include sortedmulti (Andrew Chow)
80be78ea75ac9833ee3db3d468ed09fc4fe6274c Test sortedmulti descriptor using BIP 67 tests (Andrew Chow)
6f588fd2276e5b713c6d36e3b01288484ddb59c0 Add sortedmulti descriptor and unit tests (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
Adds a `sortedmulti()` descriptor as mentioned in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17023#issuecomment-537596416.
`sortedmulti()` works in the same way as `multi` does but sorts the pubkeys in the resulting scripts in lexicographic order as described in [BIP67](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0067.mediawiki). Note that this does not add support for BIP67 nor is BIP67 fully supported by this descriptor (which is why it is not named `multi67()`) as it does not require compressed pubkeys.
Tests from BIP67 were added and documentation was updated.
ACKs for top commit:
instagibbs:
re-ACK 4bb660be90
Sjors:
re-ACK 4bb660be90a2811b53855bf1fd33a8dd9ba3db47
Tree-SHA512: 93b21112a74ebe0bf316d8f3e0291f69fd975cf0a29332f9728e7b880cad312b8b14007e86adcd7899f117b9303cbcf4cb35f3bb2f2f648d1a446f83f75a70a5
eeeaa29214 descriptors.md: Refer to descriptors as describing instead of matching (Russell Yanofsky)
eb49412562 doc/descriptors.md tweaks (Russell Yanofsky)
Pull request description:
Add some implementation details, and tweak phrasing in examples section to be more explicit about how expressions are used for matching.
Tree-SHA512: a9dc7bc0fc370548189a789f31c04bd11103cdd2a99bcb909fa1b1dfa4e78509813dad5d5c9e3db98d66929f45cb5704f5c46ab4cbd800fef22cd8465f80ef33
