## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Client version string is inconsistent. Building `v20.0.0-beta.8` tag
locally produces binaries that report `v20.0.0-beta.8` version but
binaries built in guix would report
`v20.0.0rc1-g3e732a952226a20505f907e4fd9b3fdbb14ea5ee` instead. Building
any commit after `v20.0.0-beta.8` locally would result in versions like
`v20.0.0rc1-8c94153d2497` which is close but it's still yet another
format. And both versions with `rc1` in their names are confusing cause
you'd expect them to mention `beta.8` instead maybe (or is it just me?
:D ).
## What was done?
Change it so that the version string would look like this:
on tag: ~`v20.0.0-beta.8-dev` or `v20.0.0-beta.8-gitarc`~
`v20.0.0-beta.8`
post-tag: ~`v20.0.0-beta.8-1-gb837e08164-gitarc`~
`v20.0.0-beta.8-1-gb837e08164`
post-tag format is
`recent tag`-`commits since that tag`-`g+12 chars of commit hash`-`dirty
(optional)` ~-`dev or gitarc`~
~`dev`/`gitarc` suffixes should help avoiding confusion with the release
versions and they also indicate the way non-release binaries were
built.~
Note that release binaries do not use any of this, they still use
`PACKAGE_VERSION` from `configure` like before.
Also, `CLIENT_VERSION_RC` is no longer used in this setup so it was
removed.
Few things aren't clear to me yet:
1. Version bump in `configure.ac` no longer affects the reported version
(unless it's an actual release). Are there any downsides I might be
missing?
2. Which tag should we use on `develop` once we bump version in
configure? `v21.0.0-init`? `v21.0.0-alpha1`?
3. How is it going to behave once `merge master back into develop` kind
of PR is merged? E.g. say `develop` branch is on `v21.0.0-alpha1` tag
and we merge v20.1.0 from `master` back into it. Will this bring
`v20.1.0` release tag into `develop`? Will it become the one that will
be used from that moment? If so we will probably need another tag on
`develop` every time such PR is merged e.g. `v21.0.0-alpha2` (or
whatever the next number is).
Don't think these are blockers but would like to hear thoughts from
others.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Built binaries locally, built them using guix at a specific tag and at
some commit on top of it.
## 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)_
5d77549d8b287eb773db695b88c165ebe3be1005 doc: Add mypy to test dependencies (Hennadii Stepanov)
7dda912e1c28b02723c9f24fa6c4e9003d928978 test: Do not swallow flake8 exit code (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
After #18210 the `flake8` exit code in `test/lint/lint-python.sh` just not used that makes the linter broken.
This PR:
- combines exit codes of `flake8` and `mypy` into the `test/lint/lint-python.sh` exit code
- documents `mypy` as the test dependency
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
Approach ACK 5d77549d8b287eb773db695b88c165ebe3be1005, fine with me
practicalswift:
ACK 5d77549d8b287eb773db695b88c165ebe3be1005
Tree-SHA512: e948ba04dc4d73393967ebf3c6a26c40d428d33766382a0310fc64746cb7972e027bd62e7ea76898b742a656cf7d0fcda2fdd61560a21bfd7be249cea27f3d41
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Remove dash-qt from docker images; save ~41MB
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
Hasn't
## Breaking Changes
I guess in theory someone could've been relying on dash-qt from docker 🤷
## 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)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Add an echo
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Should hopefully fix
https://github.com/dashpay/dash-dev-branches/actions/runs/6939402277/job/18876687119#5716 follow-up
## What was done?
`$GITHUB_REPOSITORY` is not available inside docker, pass it inside
## 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
In order to provide nightly builds over at dash-dev-branches we need to
be able to run this automation with other REPOs
## What was done?
Make it repo specific.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Hasn't yet
## 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)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Make Dash on Docker Hub easier to find, a search on `dash` there does
not provide the result.
## What was done?
Improved Docker documentation in `contrib/containers/README.md`
## How Has This Been Tested?
n/a
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## 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
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Building with develop docker container on aarch64
## What was done?
Only install i386 stuff on non-arm builders
## How Has This Been Tested?
Building on aarch64 / m1
## Breaking Changes
Should be none
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Description
Pull request was inspired by the need to debug lock problems when
working on https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5352.
As far as I'm aware, only macOS has `-Werror=thread-safety` as part of
its default `CXXFLAGS` despite the capability being present on Linux as
well. This PR introduces thread safety checks for that into our thread
sanitizer build.
Additionally, since we're using Clang, something that on first glimpse,
appears to be something that `stacktraces.cpp` isn't happy with, due to
`-Wl,-wrap` being available only on GCC, that no longer seems to be the
case, since the version of Clang with comes with `focal`, its `lld`
_does_ have support for `-wrap` (see [man page for `lld` on
`focal`](https://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/focal/en/man1/lld.1.html)).
The current `stable` version of Clang/LLVM is 15, at the time of this
pull request (see https://apt.llvm.org/) but `focal` ships with an older
version, requiring us to use the official LLVM APT repository. I feel we
should be testing with recent compilers alongside the ones shipped by
LTS distributions.
Certain bugs are only made apparent when testing on rolling release
distros or distros that have faster update cycles, like Fedora (see
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5295 for an illustration of that),
which ship with more recent compilers. Until we overhaul our CI systems
to test using those distros directly (our current infrastructure is
centered around using a "development image" with an LTS distro as the
base), this is the best we can do.
A similar pull request testing against the latest GCC stable will be
welcome as that is currently outside the scope of this PR as the changes
made were to make sure that builds were operating as expected on
Clang/LLVM 15.
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Install of dash_hash will change once
https://github.com/dashpay/dash_hash/pull/17/ is merged
## What was done?
- Changed install instructions to match new install in dash_hash README
- Updated Dockerfile to install correctly
## How Has This Been Tested?
N/A
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
<!--- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
should fix ci failures like
https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/jobs/4261565118 in #5291
## What was done?
Use the exact dash_hash version/tag instead of simply using `master`.
Bumping `DASH_HASH_VERSION` invalidates docker cache.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Ran it in my gitlab ci
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Upgraded version of cppcheck
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
Ran cppcheck
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Automation in private dashevo GitHub was failing due to the branch
trying to be built not having the automation be the newer tagged based
system. as such, if you simply tag a commit from the dashpay repo and
try to build it using automation, the build would fail. This should
resolve the issue. Recommended to BP so that we don't have this issue
when building v19.x branch builds
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
Creating a docker image should now be as simple pushing a branch and tag
to dashevo/dash; start the automation on branch develop with tag
previously specified
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
* contrib: set the working directory to /src/dash to allow for cloning gitian dependencies
* contrib: place the home directory inside /home instead of root
* contrib: add notes about sharing ccache across the network
* contrib: chown based on the (u/g)id env vars instead of the associated username
* contrib: reduce layer count by reducing run invocations
* contrib: develop container cleanup and maintenance
- add apt-cacher-ng, gpg, lsb-release, screen as a package dependencies
- reorder packages in alphabetical order
- correct documentation
- create and add user to the docker group to satisfy Gitian's needs
- reduce the number of RUN calls to reduce layer count
ea3c7e585c382998212fd7f41114462a8168a734 test: Remove libssl-dev packages from CI scripts (Wladimir J. van der Laan)
7ea55264b9d60325bc7a5c15d78e9063de145970 test: remove lsan suppression for libcrypto (Wladimir J. van der Laan)
2d7066527a456f8e1f4f603fe104b0bd9d864559 build: remove libcrypto as internal dependency in libbitcoinconsensus.pc (Wladimir J. van der Laan)
278751ea11f2cfe68b0c98f504f65586720cb5a4 doc: Remove ssl as a required dependency from build-unix (Wladimir J. van der Laan)
Pull request description:
Some doc and build cleanups following #17265.
I intentionally left the libssl-dev install in `gitian-win-signer.yml`, as it's necessary for the ossl signer.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK ea3c7e585c382998212fd7f41114462a8168a734 🗯
jamesob:
ACK ea3c7e585c
practicalswift:
ACK ea3c7e585c382998212fd7f41114462a8168a734 - nice!
fanquake:
ACK ea3c7e585c382998212fd7f41114462a8168a734 - thanks.
Tree-SHA512: 67ea35bdd6d6e512d69e6734713534c88cae033a2ed695677ea15c3e3d5ff570374e342775c88e60877fa43a19047853e7b2a433e2c9a4349a5c423726a7457e
* optimize: adjust ci dockerfile for faster building
* remove old comment
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
* remove unneeded semicolons
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
* format: make each installed package it's own line to minimize conflicts
* sort the installed packages (and a fix)
Signed-off-by: Pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
* optimize: somehow optimize circular-dependencies.py
Signed-off-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
* optimize: use parallel if available to lint in parallel
Signed-off-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
* suggestions
* more suggestions
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
* src/evo/evodb.cpp:57:29: warning: Assert statement calls a function which may have desired side effects: 'IsClean'. [assertWithSideEffect]
* src/llmq/quorums.cpp:635:37: note: Null pointer dereference
src/llmq/quorums.cpp:635:37: warning: Either the condition 'pFrom==nullptr' is redundant or there is possible null pointer dereference: pFrom. [nullPointerRedundantCheck]
src/llmq/quorums.cpp:636:81: note: Assuming that condition 'pFrom==nullptr' is not redundant
* fix a bunch of cppcheck warnings
* cppcheck: run on many more files. Enable all checks except a few ignored ones.
ignored
```
"Consider using std::transform algorithm instead of a raw loop."
"Consider using std::accumulate algorithm instead of a raw loop."
```
* ci: build specific version of cppcheck instead of install from apt
* ci: use cppcheck 2.4, remove commented out line, fix symlink
cppcheck 2.6 is latest, however causes issues
```
src/spork.cpp:135:51: warning: Analysis failed. If the code is valid then please report this failure. [cppcheckError]
```
cppcheck 2.5 appears to get into an infinite loop
* no need to check presence before insertion
* use if-init, remove redundant check
* remove redundant check
* don't remove cmake? fix macOs depends build?
* cppcheck: one per line, alphabetize
* remove duplicate cmake install
