c3f2474898 chore: update pasta gpg key to reflect new subkeys (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
I've added 2 subkeys to my GPG key `29590362EC878A81FD3C202B52527BEDABE87984` to better follow best practices, which avoids using your primary key whenever possible. All future git commit signing, and potentially releases will be signed by a subkey instead of the primary key.
These updated subkeys keys are now included on all the major keyservers
hkps://keyserver.ubuntu.com
hkps://pgp.mit.edu
hkps://keyserver.ubuntu.com
keybase has 1 of the 2 subkeys already, will add the other soon.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
Users who validate my signatures may have to refresh the key from keyservers via `gpg --refresh-keys` or pull down from keybase via `curl https://keybase.io/pasta/pgp_keys.asc | gpg --import`
## Checklist:
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK c3f2474898
Tree-SHA512: 87d33caceb1973a54877c5d5a8b85a48e1373b7709698efc793598bf7453608979bfe1c75e4ea0c9ec852c0343b43b06357c58f6c4fbf72915eb910788cc705f
cd712e86b7 ci: attest results of guix builds (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
This simply adds attestations to guix results by GitHub. This way, not only can someone verify that all us developers agree, but also that GitHub hosted runners agree :)
## What was done?
Add actions/attest-build-provenance to guix-build CI
## How Has This Been Tested?
see: https://github.com/PastaPastaPasta/dash/actions/runs/11239755631
## 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK cd712e86b7
Tree-SHA512: b590ee2cf29aa57f78cb68c22d5327e8c9272d63d523c3b64fbbdffabb90981a6b6505c5f511bde19310ea1d8c96fc6d181359a7d7a0672612473110cbe079ef
770651aa15 set hosts in guix-check (pasta)
580bbe6d1c feat: improve guix building; run always, save artifacts (pasta)
101a31555f refactor: simplify caching setup, add a restore key to actually cache besides 1 run (pasta)
1b139e4837 feat: automatically run guix-build on all tags pushed (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Previously, we only ran guix on 1 machine for all hosts; this slowed it down a lot. Let's move to GitHub action runners, but run them all separately. Then upload the artifacts.
In the future there is significant caching I can add that should help a lot more. But currently, takes about 1 hour
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
see: https://github.com/PastaPastaPasta/dash/actions/runs/10345024600
## 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK 770651aa15
Tree-SHA512: 639b95c3b6a26f205ed00c138a9189f915cfc36a815516035e59ceda82675414b1bd31a361b33449b5e4c58a7655f3a7d616b362c23f7fa75e72b1284be06b9e
a7bbcc823d fix: make 6336 compile in v21.1.x branch, using older CHECK_NONFATAL functionality (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Resolve build failures when 6336 is back ported
## What was done?
Use older functionality of CHECK_NONFATAL
## How Has This Been Tested?
built on both branches
## Breaking Changes
## 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
knst:
utACK a7bbcc823d
UdjinM6:
utACK a7bbcc823d (#6339 compiles with this one applied on top of it)
kwvg:
utACK a7bbcc823d
Tree-SHA512: 17b6d8223f653eaafa6ef9d1a4e8fc14ca1fe1623fbb13d23a9429e87a64c8fae3ddaf6d2d8d5a52138ab712a36949662b38a8a9cbbc5db3618ce24f565f6f2a
b9a46f6d2c refactor: use IsPlatformTransfer in core_write and rpc/blockchain (Konstantin Akimov)
f6169fade4 fix: make composite rpc 'masternode payments' to work with withdrawals (Konstantin Akimov)
e498378eb7 feat: add test for fee in getmempoolentry (Konstantin Akimov)
b0d06f0b5f feat: add regression test for `getblock` and `getblockstats` for withdrawal fee calculation failure (Konstantin Akimov)
ab7172bc8f fix: getblockstats rpc to work with withdrawal transactions (Konstantin Akimov)
96c9b469ca fix: getblock for withdrawal transaction if verbosity level is 2 (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/6335
## What was done?
Applied fixes for `getblock` rpc and `getblockstats` rpc to make them work with withdrawal transactions (asset unlock).
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run updated functional test `feature_asset_locks.py` without the fix causes a failure:
```
2024-10-22T12:01:35.902000Z TestFramework (ERROR): JSONRPC error
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/knst/projects/dash-reviews/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 160, in main
self.run_test()
File "/home/knst/projects/dash-reviews/test/functional/feature_asset_locks.py", line 273, in run_test
self.test_asset_unlocks(node_wallet, node, pubkey)
File "/home/knst/projects/dash-reviews/test/functional/feature_asset_locks.py", line 410, in test_asset_unlocks
self.log.info(f"block info: {node.getblock(block_asset_unlock, 2)}")
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/home/knst/projects/dash-reviews/test/functional/test_framework/coverage.py", line 49, in __call__
return_val = self.auth_service_proxy_instance.__call__(*args, **kwargs)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/home/knst/projects/dash-reviews/test/functional/test_framework/authproxy.py", line 148, in __call__
raise JSONRPCException(response['error'], status)
test_framework.authproxy.JSONRPCException: Internal bug detected: "MoneyRange(fee)"
core_write.cpp:338 (TxToUniv)
Please report this issue here: https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues
(-1)
```
With patch functional test `feature_asset_locks.py` succeed.
## 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
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
ACKs for top commit:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK b9a46f6d2c
kwvg:
utACK b9a46f6d2c
UdjinM6:
utACK b9a46f6d2c
ogabrielides:
utACK b9a46f6d2c
Tree-SHA512: e49cf73bff5fabc9463ae538c6c556d02b3f9e396e0353f5ea0661afa015259409cdada406d05b77bf0414761c76a013cd428ffc283cbdefbefe3384c9d6ccc5
21f174aff1 feat: improve query categorisation in Qt App (Konstantin Akimov)
c863473286 test: add spending asset unlock tx in functional tests (Konstantin Akimov)
1fb67ece0e feat: make a support of Qt app to show Platform Transfer transaction as a new type of transaction (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Transfers from platform have incorrectly shown amount in Dash Core wallet app.
They also shown in Qt app as self-send that is not completely true.
## What was done?
Added new type of transaction to Qt App, added a filter for its type, fixed calculation of output for tx records.
As well added a new type of transaction `platform-transfer` in rpc output of `gettransaction` RPC
## How Has This Been Tested?
Make a Platform Transfer transaction on RegTest and check it in Dash Core
Helper to see it: export dpath=/tmp/dash_func_test_PATHPATH/ ; src/qt/dash-qt -regtest -conf=$dpath/node0/dash.conf -datadir=$dpath/node0/ -debug=0 -debuglogfile=/dev/stdout
## Breaking Changes
There's new type of transaction "platform-transfer" in rpc output of `gettransaction`.
**This PR DOES NOT change any consensus rules.**
Breaking changes that makes withdrawal transaction immature is moved to https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6128
## 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
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: ec2a54a910f121ad30ff8e94cf17080b5b3c651872e9bc3de9ec0924ca7f7a0e526b74b05cde26aaf860e3809e67f66142112319a69c216527e5bcb1b8a2b8f6
e994691e2d Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#30504: doc: use proper doxygen formatting for CTxMemPool::cs (merge-script)
a3e6378108 Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#23258: doc: Fix outdated comments referring to ::ChainActive() (fanquake)
dcbf671551 Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#30131: wallet, tests: Avoid stringop-overflow warning in PollutePubKey (merge-script)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
It fixes build with clang 19.1.1 (default clang version on Ubuntu 24.10)
## What was done?
Backport 30131, 30504 to fix compilation error and warning; 23258 to reduce conflicts.
See commit messages for details
## How Has This Been Tested?
Build and succeed
```
CC=clang CXX=clang++ ./configure --prefix=$(pwd)/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --enable-suppress-external-warnings --enable-debug --enable-stacktraces --enable-werror --enable-crash-hooks --enable-maintainer-mode --enable-multiprocess
```
## 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
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
ACKs for top commit:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK e994691e2d
UdjinM6:
utACK e994691e2d
Tree-SHA512: 82623030c164c0852d87e8497a59157630f87a385050b6c58d79bf5a8f32462fb26cb02e61b1062afdf9f835e10b9baf4590c326c0fb41bbdd79c82e9d105513
9876c2d78b docs: add partial release notes (UdjinM6)
b330318db7 refactor: drop circular dependency (UdjinM6)
e54fe42ce8 refactor: use `key_to_p2pkh_script` in more places (UdjinM6)
3ed6246889 test: check `creditOutputs` format (UdjinM6)
ba0e64505b fix: `creditOutputs` in AssetLock tx json output should be an array of objects, not debug strings (UdjinM6)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Txout-s in `creditOutputs` for AssetLock txes should be shown the way txout-s are shown in other places. We should not be using debug strings there.
Example: `getrawtransaction 50757f651f335e22c5a810bd05c1e5aac0d95b132f6454e2a72683f88e3983f3 1`
develop:
```
"assetLockTx": {
"version": 1,
"creditOutputs": [
"CTxOut(nValue=0.01000000, scriptPubKey=76a914cdfca4ae1cf2333056659a2c)"
]
},
```
This PR:
```
"assetLockTx": {
"version": 1,
"creditOutputs": [
{
"value": 0.01000000,
"valueSat": 1000000,
"scriptPubKey": {
"asm": "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 cdfca4ae1cf2333056659a2c8dc656f36d228402 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
"hex": "76a914cdfca4ae1cf2333056659a2c8dc656f36d22840288ac",
"address": "yf6c2VSpWGXUgmjQSHRpfEcTPsbqN4oL4c",
"type": "pubkeyhash"
}
}
]
},
```
kudos to @coolaj86 for finding the issue
## What was done?
Change `CAssetLockPayload::ToJson()` output to be closer to [`TxToUniv()`](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/develop/src/core_write.cpp#L262-L272)
NOTE: `refactor: use key_to_p2pkh_script in more places` commit is a bit unrelated but I decided to add it anyway to make it easier to follow assetlock creation vs getrawtransaction rpc check.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Try example above, run tests
## Breaking Changes
RPC output is different for AssetLock txes
## 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
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
ACKs for top commit:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 9876c2d78b
Tree-SHA512: 158c98ac9e4979bb29c4f54cb1b71806f22aaec92218d92cd2b2e9b9f74df721563e7a6c5f517ea358ac74659fa79f51d1b683002a1cdceb1b8ee80f8fd79375
715bc1af66 test: check `masternode winners` before and after mn_rr (UdjinM6)
9d47cd2226 fix: adjust payee predictions after mn_rr activation (UdjinM6)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Payment predictions in GUI are wrong when mn_rr is active, `masternode winners` RPC is affected by the same issue too. Actual payments aren't affected.
## What was done?
Adjust calculations, add tests for `masternode winners`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run dash-qt on testnet, check "Next Payment" on "Masternode" tab. 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
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
ACKs for top commit:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 715bc1a
Tree-SHA512: 293c77974bcb50c6f9c51449d7bb12f89ad8db5871cad3a6083fe1951fe77e0deba8de7688b2f600fabe977bdc7390a66a984a6a076be19183c23742e00e27bf
bf377d47e5 fix: correct is_snapshot_cs in VerifyDB (James O'Beirne)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Flag `is_snapshot_cs` has been inverted in bitcoin#21584
Discovered during investigation of issue:
```
Verifying last 6 blocks at level 3
2024-08-14T14:51:55Z [0%]...*** Found EvoDB inconsistency, you must reindex to continue
```
So far as code below does:
```
if ((fPruneMode || is_snapshot_cs) && !(pindex->nStatus & BLOCK_HAVE_DATA)) {
// If pruning or running under an assumeutxo snapshot, only go
// back as far as we have data.
LogPrintf("VerifyDB(): block verification stopping at height %d (pruning, no data)\n", pindex->nHeight);
break;
}
```
In case of missing data in evo db we will get instead of "block verification stopping at height" we may get data inconsistency issue.
## What was done?
Inverted condition back (same fix in bitcoin/bitcoin#27596)
## How Has This Been Tested?
Unit/functional tests doesn't cover it, but they do no fail after fix.
## 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
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK bf377d47e5
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK bf377d47e5
Tree-SHA512: ac21e6db6e23c4c7dc150fb16171aef47c9f42c29466b403bca7d56ed6faa2fccc41df92e1fabec4d6e9fd56991e152dea168593a4550fc3583631a63009c27f
3ec0c8ca0a fix: persist coinjoin denoms and sessions options from gui over restarts (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Persist coinjoin denoms over restarts, fixes#5975
## What was done?
Soft set the argument into the daemon from GUI settings
## How Has This Been Tested?
follow procedure in 5975
## Breaking Changes
## 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
knst:
utACK 3ec0c8ca0a
UdjinM6:
utACK 3ec0c8ca0a
Tree-SHA512: b7378460b3990713b755f36de506b94e7d0005f19cf1155f2fc12191ba03f2e16c35049ddbd89f578acd89bc8eae5e432913114e1ff5ef7ab2cc30628aeff3f2
8e9dd127c7 chore: bump version in configure.ac (pasta)
afb8dc0698 docs: add v21.1.0 release notes and archive v21.0.2 (pasta)
269dd025e8 Merge #6179: chore: update manpages v21.1 (pasta)
a8cb643db8 Merge #6175: feat: allow resigning for EHF (pasta)
de5cc22b0c Merge #6178: chore: bump protocol version to 70233 (pasta)
2de4ce51b0 Merge #6176: test: reduce BRRHeight in regtest (pasta)
840175ecb4 Merge #6174: fix: stop trying to sign pending txes when they are no longer non-locked (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Backports for v21.1.0, add release notes and
## What was done?
See commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
Been on devnet
## 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
knst:
utACK 8e9dd127c7
Tree-SHA512: 3c968c4f0e06bc88f63bf10f742d39595c45c7fcd4aef1891d2e76d9f443cae1ddd3cb84c787faa189ef3a189a9dd63a7f75e69f5787a47d1281d5b6a445a2a6
d32a03c7e7 chore: update man pages (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
V21.1 preparation
## What was done?
Update manpages
## 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
ACKs for top commit:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK d32a03c7e7
Tree-SHA512: a16036121c48597d80eefcf9232afb8f2da20d7b2e45de4beac31f025f3d8d638f5006e0bb52f706e08235fca172ddfc3309fd143734d37a14776cd7e8842128
6f82a56171 feat: add option to AsyncSignIfMember to allow signing same requestID on different msgHashes (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Please see: https://www.dash.org/forum/index.php?threads/ehf-activation-issues.55146/ for a description of this issue
## What was done?
Allow re-signing specifically for EHF messages, this is important as due to rotation, and duplicate requestIDs a member will refuse to re-sign when they participate in a later quorum.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Devnet deployed with a mix of this version, older versions and current v21.0
## Breaking Changes
This doesn't introduce any breaking changes
## 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)_
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: a758e6363901624d8540983ad09085d47a33fe61e8e576ec4317b051a0f988efb983bd06d9894bcce19c9f587ad703022ce00ceddd3760d7c9d382878f40c2d7
3783b70129 chore: bump protocol version to 70233 (Odysseas Gabrielides)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Bumped protocol version to 70233
## 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 3783b70129
knst:
utACK 3783b70129
Tree-SHA512: 3f5f04fcc31c5381a1ddce408a3c31876ca6d58ff229c80784ab938be70c3820b773c5db7f0c77fb7a00cc03dbefb70a42b81a0bf17195b78b47cee1e12310b5
38ecd6f951 test: reduce BRRHeight on regtest (Odysseas Gabrielides)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
In regtest, Block Reward Reallocation is buried at height 2500, which happens after v20 activation.
## What was done?
Reduced BRRHeight in regtest from 2500 to 1000.
The purpose of this change is to simplify regtests of Platform as well.
Note: This change affects only regtest.
## How Has This Been Tested?
tests
## Breaking Changes
no, this only affects Regtest (where we make no guarantees about breaking stuff)
## 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)_
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: b5a1c2b2c2b70682f266d9d0af9e048a03417c0cb2480eb5ab5838965342b6465acd10d8dac5a0d3c5c5f59f4e36ac5b909a838bc3805c2265a83776e92b4827
d8449aecf9 fix: stop trying to sign pending txes when they are no longer non-locked (UdjinM6)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Masternodes keep trying to sign txes they received initially even after these txes were replaced by is/chain-locked txes later.
## What was done?
Remove entries from `pendingRetryTxs` when txes are removed from `nonLockedTxs` set (as either already locked or as conflicted, doesn't matter).
## 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK d8449aecf9
knst:
utACK d8449aecf9
Tree-SHA512: 45983faad6d590d4e44fc195c77d73d216e3d0bebef963fe556688773c82c07a118916f56fde7f1213df19d4fb9b7d82d8fd51abecd8e6c2108c27d62d0426c1
56cc39d178 chore: bump version to 21.0.2 (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
my bad... forgot
## What was done?
Bump version in configure.ac
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK 56cc39d178
Tree-SHA512: 7f85d3521e7a264d212a678a3e7ac6d39fceeee209433a02f3c05dcd9dec28ce2893e75a7754331d913ec8215ddda205cf0fbc5c0e0c02eb1afeb899635f29f5
5619c8f5fd docs: add release notes for v21.0.1 and archive v21.0.0 (pasta)
9e80d128c0 Merge #6163: fix: use blocks-only instead of address-only for inventory (pasta)
e10c5c9579 Merge #6160: feat: add sbom and provenance in release for dockerhub; use jammy; apt remove as possible (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Backport PRs for v21.0.1
## What was done?
See commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
See CI
## 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
knst:
utACK 5619c8f5fd
kwvg:
utACK 5619c8f5fd
UdjinM6:
utACK 5619c8f5fd
Tree-SHA512: 42c1e31319775e5800da2d82af00cae3aa0cee3baadd0123a809efc246d4ca5d0e6a4166b574e6ddebf66c0a80f4ee1655caff085f1687bb533889414a9fd4cf
3468ab34d1 fix: use blocks-only instead of address-only for inventory (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Mobile client (without full blockchain) can't receive transactions before they are mined in the block.
## What was done?
Fixed a condition "is an addr relay" to "not a block relay".
It's an alternate solution for https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6162
## How Has This Been Tested?
Tested with hashengineering - it works!
## 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
ACKs for top commit:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK [3468ab3](3468ab34d1); no diff
kwvg:
utACK 3468ab34d1
Tree-SHA512: 6ad257a72be0f2fd4d7a8e3674d537e2a2c5f0c7c1bdfdf825403d8cb2975261bcf4574949fb02a16de76762d3f30b40e094be448cfa4ee6bae9f1f5be5f44d5
9178e8a75f feat: add smob and provenance in release for dockerhub; use jammy; apt remove as possible (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Docker provenance refers to the origin and history of Docker images, including how they were built, modified, and by whom. An SBOM (Software Bill of Materials) is a detailed list of all components in a software application, providing transparency about libraries, dependencies, and versions used, which is crucial for security and compliance.
## What was done?
Add SBOM and provenance to docker build; this may allow some level of validation that GitHub actions is actually doing what it says it is.
See this for more information https://docs.docker.com/build/ci/github-actions/attestations/
## How Has This Been Tested?
Building with buildx with sbom and provenance flags locally
## 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK 9178e8a75f
Tree-SHA512: 6e3f35a0b30f002e2d5d80d6dd18ee554a1c15c62c1d4cbe1185f38977f55a199998515cf5bb9a027670f068f3d56ef33faa062d8c4122a886375d00afe6bf2f
98a33939fd chore: set release to true (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Sets release flag to true.
## 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK 98a33939fd
Tree-SHA512: 2dfe7097eaad936fa426186233e9088c7fe41a33277cee9e4ff88061e9f68ad76741d4e7e6204294687edad9d16083a1af0375b0b572ff144e6051c429860699
cd0a3a6cc6 Merge #6154: chore: remove trailing whitespaces in release notes (pasta)
6bc60a7236 Merge #6151: chore: update seeds for v21 release (pasta)
88e949aa1b Merge #6146: chore: bump assumevalid, minchainwork, checkpoints, chaintxdata (pasta)
cc14427ccd Merge #6144: docs: release notes for v21.0.0 (pasta)
0a8ece1fd2 Merge #6122: chore: translations 2024-07 (pasta)
146d24401f Merge #6140: feat: harden all sporks on mainnet to current values (pasta)
024d272eb9 Merge #6126: feat: enable EHF activation of MN_RR on mainnet (pasta)
e780b3d48d Merge #6125: docs: update manpages for 21.0 (pasta)
5ede23c2ba Merge #6118: docs: add release notes notifying change of default branch to `develop` (pasta)
1b6fe9c720 Merge #6117: docs: update supported versions in SECURITY.md (pasta)
27d20beda8 Merge #6116: fix: mitigate crashes associated with some upgradetohd edge cases (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Backports to v21 for rc.3; there are more PRs to be back ported here
## What was done?
see commits
## 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
- [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)_
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK cd0a3a6cc6
Tree-SHA512: 0a8d027c5952fcb61317cc413a0de1f3152ae675c5690942400c3e4655cc6a803c702a7e1b18d8dac77aa0f483783f5cdbe29d6c0592165c4f0517d6f37b91a4
4969a72cc9 chore: remove trailing whitespaces in release notes (UdjinM6)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/jobs/7421310092
## 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 4969a72cc9
Tree-SHA512: 2c85bb45a097543abad3e8f97fd9b7cd847fbfdfd4b4916e24f6725ffc05cad38647ff008dc4a35b188a6db631e6fffcbd535362a794f440d45a678255c13428
43c39537d8 chore: update seeds (Konstantin Akimov)
16dd04357b chore: added extra onion seeds (provided by pasta) (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/6081
## What was done?
Extra onion seeds are provided by pasta.
```sh
dash-cli protx list valid 1 2110129 > protx_list.json
# Make sure the onion seeds still work!
while IFS= read -r line
do
address=$(echo $line | cut -d':' -f1)
port=$(echo $line | cut -d':' -f2)
nc -v -x 127.0.0.1:9050 -z $address $port
done < "onion_seeds.txt"
python3 makeseeds.py protx_list.json onion_seeds.txt > nodes_main.txt
python3 generate-seeds.py . > ../../src/chainparamsseeds.h
```
## 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
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK 43c39537d8
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 43c39537d8
Tree-SHA512: 8583f030949c6b26b5410eaa4db4f9b85fbe14bc147083861519d9564ae1fff52716b2d8deb233d30ecfb679e778cb2bb2f0ef3dee392cff1986b004b03d9e1e
dfe708993d chore: bump assumevalid, minchainwork, checkpoints, chaintxdata (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
bump assumevalid, minchainwork, checkpoints, chaintxdata in prep for v21 release final
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
Reindex TBD
## 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK dfe708993d
kwvg:
utACK dfe708993d
Tree-SHA512: 34ef58092cbae4389db87e3f4fc9978356abf19ea110575b89663f00c7621091141f138ce03bc21d7deca9f5b86588c1c2e0874aa8a85d7c54efa41a201d51cc
dfd144b64d docs: add v21.0.0 release notes, archive old release notes, delete partials (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Add release notes for v21.0.0
## What was done?
See commits
## 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
- [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)_
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: fafe225f7db59ccea6aa998b04204f22b913ab4d0a178737ca2311b093c04be39ce57c2a6ab3e8e0e312a10159118a024371a7315dcb5df3d8651d3535417861
85762dc633 60%+: bg, ro, vi (UdjinM6)
2d0e68dcd6 80%+: ar, de, es, fi, fr, it, ja, ko, nl, pl, pt, ru, sk, th, tr, zh_CN, zh_TW (UdjinM6)
f7992b0b03 en (UdjinM6)
49fc976121 dashstrings (UdjinM6)
c8333a59c5 chore: replace remaining `...` with `…` in translated strings (UdjinM6)
ac2e9ea1e7 qt: Extract translations correctly from UTF-8 formatted source (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Mostly regular translation updates but with 2 additional fixes:
- ac2e9ea is a backport, without it `make translate` fails to update `dashstrings.cpp` properly (but I couldn't figure out which PR it belongs to 🤷♂️ )
- c8333a5 is needed to make it easier to replace all `...` with `…` in `*.ts` files locally to avoid annoying translators (`...` and `…` are visually the same in transifex interface)
## 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 85762dc633
Tree-SHA512: c3624d8e5b26b0fd4d488e6988e81000d05bdc66f9e126b5d3fe3c1f6bceaa846ee81dfc7c0d18613b0ac682a94e0b17007e86724e7cc02d9cfce87b22ce6916
e1030a058c docs: add release notes for 6140 (pasta)
9ed292a6e1 feat: harden all sporks on mainnet to current values (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Harden all sporks on the mainnet; they are no longer necessary. Although retaining them might be beneficial in addressing bugs or issues, the greater priority is to protect mainnet by minimizing risks associated with potential centralization or even its perception. Sporks will continue to be valuable for testing on developer networks; however, on mainnet, the risks of maintaining them now outweigh the benefits of retaining them.
## What was done?
Adjust CSporkManager::GetSporkValue to always return 0 for sporks in general and 1 for SPORK_21_QUORUM_ALL_CONNECTED specifically.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Ran main net node with this patch. Sporks show as expected
## Breaking Changes
This is not a 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
- [ ] 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
knst:
utACK e1030a058c
UdjinM6:
utACK e1030a058c (CI failure is unrelated)
Tree-SHA512: f20d0f614b7e9d6eb5606c545d0747a9d415f2905512dd6100a2f9fb00bb6de02c8d5aa74cb41aa39163fde0ab05fe472913acc227b1b4afce7e984f8897940d
a8a3ea0e90 feat: enable EHF activation of MN_RR on mainnet (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/6081
## What was done?
Removed a code, that disabled MN_RR activation with EHF on Main Net
## How Has This Been Tested?
This code is tested on devnet, is in process of testing on testnet.
## Breaking Changes
It make MN_RR possible to get active on mainnet.
## 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
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK a8a3ea0e90
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK a8a3ea0e90
Tree-SHA512: 0ae7aecca8463436e952154210cf564333cd77dd1149f7ff88ca144f3b7c434e75e473ea3a6850da1b126efd8a9cece34e46b4bf2b37f5937bcf1f5780e18f50
e2f56de7f4 docs: update manpages for 21.0 (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/6081
## What was done?
run `./contrib/devtools/gen-manpages.sh`, sanitize version name
## 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
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK e2f56de7f4
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK e2f56de7f4
Tree-SHA512: 9b56f7a31279457aed1b7ed0b627d4364f786948f6df3176e24ab73b68d785fc90d9bf6136d7965c1c5b97b589b4d228edd338e666d1999e841c6e544f054c05
8a66af25e8 docs: add release notes notifying change of default branch to `develop` (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
Pull request description:
## Additional Information
Add a release note notifying the new default branch as `develop`.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests **(note: N/A)**
- [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)_
ACKs for top commit:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 8a66af25e8
UdjinM6:
utACK 8a66af25e8
Tree-SHA512: 82212ce670cf4b0f243a79170914ad04b1d118406ce6402b33dfb42a5ae0865c36de4b816530238bb9ded796c66f3dcc36fa9400ace59b6e7dad24ba47653e4f
878bce0f45 docs: update SECURITY.md supported versions (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
Pull request description:
## Additional Information
Updates the supported versions list in `SECURITY.md`
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests **(note: N/A)**
- [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)_
ACKs for top commit:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 878bce0f45
UdjinM6:
utACK 878bce0f45
knst:
utACK 878bce0f45
Tree-SHA512: d941a3ca0792b2f08f68cab562a35d869d8e93f627918a25a9753955b6103d1515899b0ca50ff936c966b9f9fd603e12d27b03267361c8f1030a31f9fffdf2ae
69c37f4ec2 rpc: make sure `upgradetohd` always has the passphrase for `UpgradeToHD` (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
619b640a77 wallet: unify HD chain generation in CWallet (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
163d31861c wallet: unify HD chain generation in LegacyScriptPubKeyMan (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
Pull request description:
## Motivation
When filming demo footage for https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6093, I realized that if I tried to create an encrypted blank legacy wallet and run `upgradetohd [mnemonic]`, the client would crash.
```
dash@b9c6631a824d:/src/dash$ ./src/qt/dash-qt
QStandardPaths: XDG_RUNTIME_DIR not set, defaulting to '/tmp/runtime-dash'
dash-qt: wallet/scriptpubkeyman.cpp:399: void LegacyScriptPubKeyMan::GenerateNewCryptedHDChain(const SecureString &, const SecureString &, CKeyingMaterial): Assertion `res' failed.
Posix Signal: Aborted
No debug information available for stacktrace. You should add debug information and then run:
dash-qt -printcrashinfo=bvcgc43iinzgc43ijfxgm3ybaadwiyltnawxc5avkbxxg2lyebjwsz3omfwduicbmjxxe5dfmqaaa===
```
The expected set of operations when performing privileged operations is to first use `walletpassphrase [passphrase] [time]` to unlock the wallet and then perform the privileged operation. This routine that applies for almost all privileged RPCs doesn't apply here, the unlock state of the wallet has no bearing on constructing an encrypted HD chain as it needs to be encrypted with the master key stored in the wallet, which in turn is encrypted with a key derived from the passphrase (i.e., `upgradetohd` imports **always** need the passphrase, if encrypted).
You might have noticed that I used `upgradetohd [mnemonic]` instead of the correct syntax, `upgradetohd [mnemonic] "" [passphrase]` that is supposed to be used when supplying a mnemonic to an encrypted wallet, because when you run the former, you don't get told to enter the passphrase into the RPC command, you're told.
```
Error: Please enter the wallet passphrase with walletpassphrase first.
```
Which tells you to treat it like any other routine privileged operation and follow the routine as mentioned above. This is where insufficient validation starts rearing its head, we only validate the passphrase if we're supplied one even though we should be demanding one if the wallet is encrypted and it isn't supplied. We didn't supply a passphrase because we're following the normal routine, we unlocked the wallet so `EnsureWalletIsUnlocked()` is happy, so now the following happens.
```
upgradetohd()
| Insufficient validation has allowed us to supply a blank passphrase
| for an encrypted wallet
|- CWallet::UpgradeToHD()
|- CWallet::GenerateNewHDChainEncrypted()
| We get our hands on vMasterKey by generating the key from our passphrase
| and using it to unlock vCryptedMasterKey.
|
| There's one small problem, we don't know if the output of CCrypter::Decrypt
| isn't just gibberish. Since we don't have a passphrase, whatever came from
| CCrypter::SetKeyFromPassphrase isn't the decryption key, meaning, the
| vMasterKey we just got is gibberish
|- LegacyScriptPubKeyMan::GenerateNewCryptedHDChain()
|- res = LegacyScriptPubKeyMan::EncryptHDChain()
| |- EncryptSecret()
| |- CCrypter::SetKey()
| This is where everything unravels, the gibberish key's size doesn't
| match WALLET_CRYPTO_KEY_SIZE, it's no good for encryption. We bail out.
|- assert(res)
We assume are inputs are safe so there's no real reason we should crash.
Except our inputs aren't safe, so we crash. Welp! :c
```
This problem has existed for a while but didn't cause the client to crash, in v20.1.1 (19512988c6), trying to do the same thing would return you a vague error
```
Failed to generate encrypted HD wallet (code -4)
```
In the process of working on mitigating this crash, another edge case was discovered, where if the wallet was unlocked and an incorrect passphrase was provided to `upgradetohd`, the user would not receive any feedback that they entered the wrong passphrase and the client would similarly crash.
```
upgradetohd()
| We've been supplied a passphrase, so we can try and validate it by
| trying to unlock the wallet with it. If it fails, we know we got the
| wrong passphrase.
|- CWallet::Unlock()
| | Before we bother unlocking the wallet, we should check if we're
| | already unlocked, if we are, we can just say "unlock successful".
| |- CWallet::IsLocked()
| | Wallet is indeed unlocked.
| |- return true;
| The validation method we just tried to use has a bail-out mechanism
| that we don't account for, the "unlock" succeded so I guess we have the
| right passphrase.
[...] (continue call chain as mentioned earlier)
|- assert(res)
Oh...
```
This pull request aims to resolve crashes caused by the above two edge cases.
## Additional Information
As this PR was required me to add additional guardrails on `GenerateNewCryptedHDChain()` and `GenerateNewHDChainEncrypted()`, it was taken as an opportunity to resolve a TODO ([source](9456d0761d/src/wallet/wallet.cpp (L5028-L5038))). The following mitigations have been implemented.
* Validating `vMasterKey` size (any key not of `WALLET_CRYPTO_KEY_SIZE` size cannot be used for encryption and so, cannot be a valid key)
* Validating `secureWalletPassphrase`'s presence to catch attempts at passing a blank value (an encrypted wallet cannot have a blank passphrase)
* Using `Unlock()` to validate the correctness of `vMasterKey`. (the two other instances of iterating through `mapMasterKeys` use `Unlock()`, see [here](1394c41c8d/src/wallet/wallet.cpp (L5498-L5500)) and [here](1394c41c8d/src/wallet/wallet.cpp (L429-L431)))
* `Lock()`'ing the wallet before `Unlock()`'ing the wallet to avoid the `IsLocked()` bail-out condition and then restoring to the previous lock state afterwards.
* Add an `IsCrypted()` check to see if `upgradetohd`'s `walletpassphrase` is allowed to be empty.
## 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 **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_
ACKs for top commit:
knst:
utACK 69c37f4ec2
UdjinM6:
utACK 69c37f4ec2
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 69c37f4ec2
Tree-SHA512: 4bda1f7155511447d6672bbaa22b909f5e2fc7efd1fd8ae1c61e0cdbbf3f6c28f6e8c1a8fe2a270fdedff7279322c93bf0f8e01890aff556fb17288ef6907b3e
db828177bf Merge #6106: feat: create new composite quorum-command platformsign (pasta)
a45e6df58b Merge #6104: fix: adjust incorrect parameter description that says there is a default that doesn't exist (pasta)
7330982631 Merge #6100: feat: make whitelist works with composite commands for platform needs (pasta)
9998ffd92b Merge #6096: feat: split type of error in submitchainlock - return enum in CL verifying code (pasta)
cdf7a25012 Merge #6095: fix: createwallet to require 'load_on_startup' for descriptor wallets (pasta)
c1c2c55690 Merge #6092: fix: mixing for partially unlocked descriptor wallets (pasta)
117548660d Merge #6073: feat: add logging for RPC HTTP requests: command, user, http-code, time of running (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Backports a set of 6 PRs needed in rc.2
## What was done?
Backported PRs with labels
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
kwvg:
LGTM, utACK db828177bf
UdjinM6:
utACK db828177bf
Tree-SHA512: 1b242c5db04bd5873ef622543bc2a25e29567f15962c677ea51ff05cb784291968d18f419bf611c206b912e8f15d687208ae75af33aab89038b6f0167d99c4bf
2db69d7b81 chore: add release notes for "quorum platformsign" (Konstantin Akimov)
283c5f89a2 feat: create new composite command "quorum platformsign" (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
It splits from #6100
With just whitelist it is impossible to limit the RPC `quorum sign` to use only one specific quorum type, this PR aim to provide ability for quorum signing for platform quorum only.
## What was done?
Implemented a new composite command "quorum platformsign"
This composite command let to limit quorum type for signing for case of whitelist.
After that old way to limit platform commands can be deprecated - #6105
## How Has This Been Tested?
Updated a functional tests to use platform signing for Asset Unlocks feature.
## 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
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK 2db69d7b81
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 2db69d7b81
Tree-SHA512: b0dff9934137c4faa85664058e1e77f85067cc8d931e6d76ee5b9e610164ac8b0609736d5f09475256cb78d65bf92466624d784f0b13d20136df7e75613662cb
60e36b786a fix: adjust incorrect parameter description that says there is a default that doesn't exist (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
This default doesn't actually exist in code.
## What was done?
Remove default from text
## 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK 60e36b786a
Tree-SHA512: 658eb2cf101d0450619461b7ffe6069de5c04c1fdcca216713f9374cc1e60413ec9b96c3a2931fb69a4c2f8277dd6677100270960a58197da3b92dffb1e9e327
85abbb97b4 chore: add release notes for composite command for whitelist (Konstantin Akimov)
78ad778bb0 feat: test composite commands in functional test for whitelist (Konstantin Akimov)
a102a59787 feat: add support of composite commands in RPC'c whitelists (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
https://github.com/dashpay/dash-issues/issues/66https://github.com/dashpay/dash-issues/issues/65
## What was done?
Our composite commands such as "quorum list" have been refactored to make them truly compatible with other features, such as whitelist, see https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6052https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6051https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6055 and other related PRs
This PR makes whitelist feature to be compatible with composite commands.
Instead implementing additional users such "dapi" better to provide universal way which do not require new build for every new API that has been used by platform, let's simplify things.
Platform at their side can use config such as this one (created based on shumkov's example):
```
rpc: {
host: '127.0.0.1',
port: 9998,
users: [
{
user: 'dashmate',
password: 'rpcpassword',
whitelist: null,
lowPriority: false,
},
{
username: 'platform-dapi',
password: 'rpcpassword',
whitelist: [],
lowPriority: true,
},
{
username: 'platform-drive-consensus',
password: 'rpcpassword',
whitelist: [getbestchainlock,getblockchaininfo,getrawtransaction,submitchainlock,verifychainlock,protx_listdiff,quorum_listextended,quorum_info,getassetunlockstatuses,sendrawtransaction,mnsync_status]
lowPriority: false,
},
{
username: 'platform-drive-other',
password: 'rpcpassword',
whitelist: [getbestchainlock,getblockchaininfo,getrawtransaction,submitchainlock,verifychainlock,protx_listdiff,quorum_listextended,quorum_info,getassetunlockstatuses,sendrawtransaction,mnsync_status]
],
lowPriority: true,
},
],
allowIps: ['127.0.0.1', '172.16.0.0/12', '192.168.0.0/16'],
},
```
## How Has This Been Tested?
Updated functional tests, see commits
## 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
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
LGTM, utACK 85abbb97b4
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 85abbb97b4
Tree-SHA512: 88608179c347420269880c352cf9f3b46272f3fc62e8e7158042e53ad69dc460d5210a1f89e1e09081d090250c87fcececade88e2ddec09f73f1175836d7867b
0133c9866d feat: add functional test for submitchainlock far ahead in future (Konstantin Akimov)
6004e06769 feat: return enum in RecoveredSig verifying code, apply for RPC submitchainlock (Konstantin Akimov)
130b6d1e96 refactor: replace static private member method to static method (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently by result of `submitchainlock` impossible to distinct a situation when a signature is invalid and when a core is far behind and just doesn't know about signing quorum yet.
This PR aims to fix this issue, as requested by shumkov for needs of platform:
> mailformed signature and can’t verify signature due to unknown quorum is the same error?
> possible to distingush ?
## What was done?
Return enum in CL verifying code `chainlock_handler.VerifyChainLock`.
The RPC `submitchainlock` now returns error with code=-1 and message `no quorum found. Current tip height: {N} hash: {HASH}`
## How Has This Been Tested?
Functional test `feature_llmq_chainlocks.py` is updated
## Breaking Changes
`submitchainlock` return one more error code - not really a breaking change though, because v21 hasn't released yet.
## 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
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK 0133c9866d
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 0133c9866d
Tree-SHA512: 794ba410efa57aaa66c47a67914deed97c1d060326e5d11a722c9233a8447f5e9215aa4a5ca401cb2199b8fc445144b2b2a692fc35494bf3296a74e9e115bda7
a42e9df06f fix: createwallet to require 'load_on_startup' for descriptor wallets (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
RPC `createwallet` has changed list of arguments: `createwallet "wallet_name" ( disable_private_keys blank "passphrase" avoid_reuse descriptors load_on_startup )` since https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5965
`load_on_startup` used to be an argument 5 but now it has a number 6. Both arguments 5 and 6 are boolean and it can confuse an user: they may even not notice that something wrong when it meant to be "load on startup" but got "descriptor wallet" which is not expected.
See also previous attempt to resolve issue: https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6029
## What was done?
To prevent confusion if user is not aware about this breaking changes, the RPC createwallet throws an exception if user trying to create descriptor wallet but has not mentioned load_on_startup. This requirement can be removed when major amount of users updated to v21.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests
Tested with CLI:
```
$ createwallet "tmp-create" true true "" false true
RPC createwallet would not accept creating descriptor wallets without specifying 'load_on_startup' flag. It is required explicitly in v21 due to breaking changes in createwallet RPC (code -8)
$ createwallet "tmp-create" true true "" false true true
{
"name": "tmp-create",
"warning": "Empty string given as passphrase, wallet will not be encrypted.\nWallet is an experimental descriptor wallet"
}
```
## Breaking Changes
You can't more pass 'descriptor=NN' without https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5965 which has not been released yet.
## 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
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK a42e9df06f
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK a42e9df06f
thephez:
utACK a42e9df06f
Tree-SHA512: bf57fed40d04a32e756e4f8bfabbe39c0cbf87275546c92f4efc19523bc3c5dd3ddc5a884d67285971dc301a6c5808bef979db52c35645ca2db0810046fe1bdc
c944908399 refactor: simplify implementation of function CWallet::IsLocked (Konstantin Akimov)
685cf34cb9 fix: unlock descriptor wallet for mixing-only (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
As [noticed by kwvg](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6090#pullrequestreview-2153639183), mixing doesn't work with descriptor wallets if do "unlock only for mixing". This PR is aiming to fix this issue.
https://github.com/dashpay/dash-issues/issues/59
## What was done?
Removed default argument "bool mixing = false" from WalletStorage interface,
Refactored a logic of CWallet::IsLocked to make it shorter, clearer and unified with bitcoin.
## How Has This Been Tested?
A. Run Dash-Qt with descriptor wallet, run mixing, enter passphrase.
The wallet is partially unlocked (for mixing only) - possible to see yellow lock in status. Mixing happens.
B. Open "send transaction dialog", try to send a transaction: the app asks password to unlock wallet as expected.
Though, I am not sure how exactly to test that **all** rpc are indeed locked when descriptor wallet is unlocked for mixing only.
## 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
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
LGTM, ~utACK~ light ACK c944908399
kwvg:
ACK c944908399
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK c944908399
Tree-SHA512: 236c895dd75042449282b051e90781ace1c941a3b2c34bb29ddadb6e62ba9c8d57c2a677ed98847630ff7fb6df4e14d2b59f3473d8f299ec104afeeb8103930c
1a691bd100 feat: add logging for RPC HTTP requests: command, user, http-code, time of running (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently there is no way to gather stats for http rpc in dash core. This PR aim to change it.
## What was done?
Implemented some basic stats for each RPC request:
- rpc command
- flag "is external"
- http status
- time to serve query (rpc time, not http time)
## How Has This Been Tested?
See new logs:
```log
[httpworker.0] [httprpc.cpp:100] [~RpcHttpRequest] -- HTTP RPC request handled: user=platform-user command=getbestblockhash is_external=false status=200 elapsed_time_ms=0
[httpworker.2] [httprpc.cpp:100] [~RpcHttpRequest] -- HTTP RPC request handled: user=platform-user command=quorum is_external=false status=500 elapsed_time_ms=0
[httpworker.3] [httprpc.cpp:100] [~RpcHttpRequest] -- HTTP RPC request handled: user=platform-user command= is_external=false status=401 elapsed_time_ms=0
[httpworker.3] [httprpc.cpp:100] [~RpcHttpRequest] -- HTTP RPC request handled: user=platform-user command=getbestblockhash is_external=true status=200 elapsed_time_ms=28
[httpworker.0] [httprpc.cpp:100] [~RpcHttpRequest] -- HTTP RPC request handled: user=operator command=getbestblockhash is_external=false status=200 elapsed_time_ms=0
```
## Breaking Changes
N/A
It doesn't change behavior of rpc server and http server.
## 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
ACKs for top commit:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 1a691bd100
Tree-SHA512: b62fceedb9a901e87c23c4aa6e6dfa7226d44da84a081ea245b40e7ff887103302147cebe0f7ff90bf9c8d4fa9ecafbaa6f25f39d2008f62c4f2beeef2877b57
bebea4b9b6 fix: auto backup issue with descriptor wallets for CJ (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Qt CoinJoin session has problems (https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5579#pullrequestreview-1912946808):
- Autobackup problems
- False keypool depletion reporting
https://github.com/dashpay/dash-issues/issues/59
## What was done?
Disables check for "remaining keys left" and "auto-backups" for non-legacy wallet.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional test
Try to run CJ mixing for descriptor wallet.
## 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
ACKs for top commit:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK bebea4b9b6
Tree-SHA512: 610551001d054c447ddca9451ac6d94f3d063ecf3ccfab437d99324efc5f99ff86e59d80a36f4ff4983d3c8107aa19292c021cb3210fcf51e79919387169c414
684503db6b feat: add a marker experimental for descriptor wallets (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Descriptor wallets pass most of functional tests now, but they are not really tested in-the-real-environment by multiple users.
## What was done?
Add a marker "experimental" for 'createwallet' rpc, for create wallet UI form.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run and 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
ACKs for top commit:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 684503db6b
Tree-SHA512: e843e5b8080c7cd4273ea532038f3ec65e0260419b2c2a3db07ee1fadd856a7ce47f367705b4ddb19c5fc91cee5a529a54d580dbf53428c3e5e8b433c96ec0c9
