10efc0487c442bccb0e4a9ac29452af1592a3cf2 Templatize ValidationState instead of subclassing (Jeffrey Czyz)
10e85d4adc9b7dbbda63e00195e0a962f51e4d2c Remove ValidationState's constructor (Jeffrey Czyz)
0aed17ef2892478c28cd660e53223c6dd1dc0187 Refactor FormatStateMessage into ValidationState (Jeffrey Czyz)
Pull request description:
This removes boilerplate code in the subclasses which otherwise only
differ by the result type.
The subclassing was introduced in a27a295.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK 10efc0487c442bccb0e4a9ac29452af1592a3cf2 🐱
ajtowns:
ACK 10efc0487c442bccb0e4a9ac29452af1592a3cf2 -- looks good to me
jonatack:
ACK 10efc048 code review, build/tests green, nice cleanup
Tree-SHA512: 765dd52dde7d49b9a5c6d99d97c96f4492673e2aed0b0604faa88db0308fa4500a26bf755cca0b896be283874096c215932e1110a2d01dc012cd36a5fce58a42
f9abf4ab6d3d3e4d4b7e90723020b5422a141a6f Add logging for CValidationInterface events (Jeffrey Czyz)
6edebacb2191373e76d79a4972d6192300976096 Refactor FormatStateMessage for clarity (Jeffrey Czyz)
72f3227c83810936e7a334304e5fd7c6dab8e91b Format CValidationState properly in all cases (Jeffrey Czyz)
428ac70095253225f64462ee15c595644747f376 Add VALIDATION to BCLog::LogFlags (Jeffrey Czyz)
Pull request description:
Add logging of `CValidationInterface` callbacks using a new `VALIDATIONINTERFACE` log flag (see #12994). A separate flag is desirable as the logging can be noisy and thus may need to be disabled without affecting other logging.
This could help debug issues where there may be race conditions at play, such as #12978.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
ACK f9abf4ab6d3d3e4d4b7e90723020b5422a141a6f
hebasto:
ACK f9abf4ab6d3d3e4d4b7e90723020b5422a141a6f
ariard:
ACK f9abf4a, only changes since 0cadb12 are replacing log indication `VALIDATIONINTERFACE` by `VALIDATION` and avoiding a forward declaration with a new include
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK f9abf4ab6d3d3e4d4b7e90723020b5422a141a6f. Just suggested changes since last review (thanks!)
Tree-SHA512: 3e0f6e2c8951cf46fbad3ff440971d95d526df2a52a2e4d6452a82785c63d53accfdabae66b0b30e2fe0b00737f8d5cb717edbad1460b63acb11a72c8f5d4236
fa569e1a9c5ad1bf8bdf866235b21aff56112224 ci: Set LC_ALL=C when running in qemu-s390x (MarcoFalke)
fa3d77623ecb25dde6b5f4be11626ed16966eb29 ci: Use debian to avoid apt install 404 errors (MarcoFalke)
fabb946090be2f604da3d7d4b1bbe93b79baf23e ci: Install needed gcc and qemu-user iff cross-compiling (MarcoFalke)
faba4672b64fb5ba89e5cb6299479887494b571a ci: Fix QEMU_USER_CMD parse issues (MarcoFalke)
fa5d709fb266c97d4db15006bf855e887a6c123b ci: Move wrap-qemu into separate script (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Now that the ci system no longer propagates files from the docker container back to the host, the wrap-qemu script is broken.
To fix it, every statement in the script needs to be executed in the docker (with `DOCKER_EXEC`). Instead of juggling with triple escape sequences like `\\\"`, just move the script to a separate file and call it with `DOCKER_EXEC`.
Also, fix a bunch of other bugs that prevent running the ci system in qemu
See the `ci/README.md` on how to test. TLDR: Can be tested with (replace `arm` with `s390x` to run the s390x build):
```
FILE_ENV="./ci/test/00_setup_env_arm.sh" MAKEJOBS="-j9" ./ci/test_run_all.sh
```
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK fa569e1a9c5ad1bf8bdf866235b21aff56112224
Tree-SHA512: 84ebc44a4f0261ee6c29605a6896a1833ff6c81d729e6d08dd111941f570ce73221422bd3303e1108a266ec5eab2148bd5ee1cf6bc01477d8cc9a6c5bf2b34c2
ef63f5fc1136ad2a2cd080d44142a2ee3945c238 ci: Combine 32-bit build with CentOS 7 build (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
Combines the CentOS build with the 32-bit (i686) build to avoid Travis bottlenecks, as suggested in #17757 by MarcoFalke. This keeps most of the properties of the 32-bit build (dash as config shell, building QT5 GUI) and just builds it with depends inside the CentOS docker container.
Making the depends in `05_before_script.sh` with unset config shell (`CONFIG_SHELL=`)
6196e93001/ci/test/05_before_script.sh (L28)
caused problems for building the library libevent (resulting in a Makefile with no shell set (`SHELL=`)), that's why I set it explicitely to `/bin/bash` if we have a CentOS Docker container.
A Travis output of this 32-bit CentOS build can be seen here: https://travis-ci.org/theStack/bitcoin/jobs/634472394 (has been restarted once due to too long build time and appearance of the `CACHE_ERR_MSG`).
For anyone wanting to verify the outputs, I found these instructions useful to reproduce a Travis build locally: https://github.com/erdc/proteus/wiki/Replicating-the-TravisCI-Environment-on-your-Local-Machine (steps 1-3). In this case it's a bit tricky since you run Docker inside Docker -- within the Travis Docker container, the CentOS Docker container is created. To make this possible, the Docker socket has to be exposed to the Travis container via bind-mounting (`docker run -v /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock ...`), as suggested in https://stackoverflow.com/a/33003273.
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: af508241cec3a10a66c37673d56691717b78375340e910fcdd3fb3870741eba623a436e1e85b26b54f013375611896f5411c5a7fec2437d367d27172230129fe
7e80f646b24a2abf3c031a649bcc706a695f80da Get the OutputType for a descriptor (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
Adds a `GetOutputType()` method to get the OutputType of a descriptor. Some descriptors don't have a determinate OutputType, so we actually use an `Optional<OutputType>`. For descriptors with indeterminate OutputType, we return `nullopt`.
`addr()` and `raw()` use OutputTypes as determined by the CTxDestination they have. For simplicity, `ScriptHash` destinations are `LEGACY` even though they could be `P2SH_SEGWIT`.
`combo()`, `pk()`, and `multi()` are `nullopt` as they either don't have an OutputType or they have multiple. `DescriptorImpl` defaults to `nullopt`.
`pkh()` is `LEGACY` as expected
`wpkh()` and `wsh()` are `BECH32` as expected.
`sh()` checks whether the sub-descriptor is `BECH32`. If so, it is `P2SH_SEGWIT`. Otherwise it is `LEGACY`.
The descriptor tests are updated to check the OutputType too.
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
ACK 7e80f646b24a2abf3c031a649bcc706a695f80da
meshcollider:
utACK 7e80f646b24a2abf3c031a649bcc706a695f80da
instagibbs:
cursory ACK 7e80f646b2
Sjors:
Code review ACK 7e80f646b24a2abf3c031a649bcc706a695f80da
jonatack:
ACK 7e80f64 code review/build/tests
Tree-SHA512: c5a813447b62e982435e1c948066f8d6c148c9ebffb0a5eb5a9028b173b01d5ead2f076a5ca3f7f37698538baa346f82a977ee48f583d89cb4e5ebd9111b2341
0e0fa27acb74b4f0075afcf59a0dff51a21baddb Get rid of VARINT default argument (Pieter Wuille)
Pull request description:
This removes the need for the non-strandard use of variadic macros.
ACKs for top commit:
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 0e0fa27acb74b4f0075afcf59a0dff51a21baddb. Only change since last review reverting outdated documentation change from earlier version of pr
jonatack:
ACK 0e0fa27 code review, built/ran tests/bitcoind
practicalswift:
ACK 0e0fa27acb74b4f0075afcf59a0dff51a21baddb -- diff looks correct
MarcoFalke:
ACK 0e0fa27acb74b4f0075afcf59a0dff51a21baddb 📯
Tree-SHA512: 6e335e4b586d62112b7260a12481cd949d1b3bbdb83edf8db690348f0a01852e68504336ff3e072e5131a7c8cb404ef11a2f786f842b8d08bbf6ea0e688777b1
6dd59d2e491bc11ab26498668543e65440a3a931 Don't allow implementers to think ScriptHash(Witness*()) results in nesting computation (Gregory Sanders)
4b8f1e989f3b969dc628b0801d5c31ebd373719c IsUsedDestination shouldn't use key id as script id for ScriptHash (Gregory Sanders)
Pull request description:
Regression introduced in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17621 which causes p2sh-segwit addresses to be erroneously missed.
Tests are only failing in 0.19 branch, likely because that release still uses p2sh-segwit addresses rather than bech32 by default.
I'll devise a test case to catch this going forward.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 6dd59d2e491bc11ab26498668543e65440a3a931
MarcoFalke:
ACK 6dd59d2
meshcollider:
Code review ACK 6dd59d2e491bc11ab26498668543e65440a3a931
Tree-SHA512: b3e0f320c97b8c1f814cc386840240cbde2761fee9711617b713d3f75a4a5dce2dff2df573d80873df42a1f4b74e816ab8552a573fa1d62c344997fbb6af9950
5855cc564fd456463e6d335830526675626923c6 bitcoin-wallet: Use PACKAGE_NAME in usage help (Luke Dashjr)
7f5db163a4ebc607d441e2457af10942be511d2c GUI: Use PACKAGE_NAME in modal overlay (Luke Dashjr)
Pull request description:
ACKs for top commit:
hebasto:
ACK 5855cc564fd456463e6d335830526675626923c6, checked with
fanquake:
ACK 5855cc564fd456463e6d335830526675626923c6 - checked `bitcoin-wallet` and a `--disable-wallet` `bitcoin-qt`.
Tree-SHA512: 3526eb122bfdbc63349d12251f17ffa20c7f3754af4ac9c554e6d36bb14b351f31c413c30401bb3d6e0e6200b72614dfc8475489b1f742b0423bd83fba758b94
e09c701e0110350f78366fb837308c086b6503c0 scripted-diff: Bump copyright of files changed in 2020 (MarcoFalke)
6cbe6209646db8914b87bf6edbc18c6031a16f1e scripted-diff: Replace CCriticalSection with RecursiveMutex (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
`RecursiveMutex` better clarifies that the mutex is recursive, see also the standard library naming: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/recursive_mutex
For that reason, and to avoid different people asking me the same question repeatedly (e.g. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15932#pullrequestreview-339175124 ), remove the outdated alias `CCriticalSection` with a scripted-diff
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Speed thing up: 8075fc0c61
Unify things: ff1a390224 (and _probably_
fix issues like https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/jobs/4304343867),
876f5c3a9f,
ed58cdda13
Let tsan tests finish on smaller/slower machines:
ba1e3360f9
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests locally and my in gitlab ci
https://gitlab.com/UdjinM6/dash/-/jobs/4319419014
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## 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)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Mainnet chain has stalled. The root issue does not appear trivial to
resolve, as such the most optimal path is likely to delay the v19 hard
fork
## What was done?
Delayed HF
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
This will hard fork mainnet
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Mainnet chain has stalled. The root issue does not appear trivial to
resolve, as such the most optimal path is likely to delay the v19 hard
fork
## What was done?
Delayed HF
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
This will hard fork mainnet
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## 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
we failed to backport 13216 correctly in #4359
noticed this while reviewing/testing #5255
## What was done?
fix it
## How Has This Been Tested?
run qt with `-resetguisetting` and check info with and without the patch
on testnet for example (or tweak regtest params and test there)
## 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
Slightly changes the detached signature creation code
## What was done?
Investigated what exactly needed to be done for notarization (docs to
come), tried it again, then when it failed as expected trying to figure
it out, then figuring it out :) simple change in the end.
## How Has This Been Tested?
created macOS detached sigs and notarized 19.0.0-rc.10 binaries and
ensured that all worked as expected. See binary attached here (sha256
3829e863831b05c3d76785540183bee556c4bab03dac98f5872df06668b9cb20)
[dashcore-19.0.0-rc.10-osx.dmg.zip](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/files/11246273/dashcore-19.0.0-rc.10-osx.dmg.zip).
You can also do a signed gitian-build for rc.10 and should replicate
these hashes.
## Breaking Changes
Should be none; I would like to backport this to 19 as a 19.0.1
## 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
This adds a check that ensures branches merge cleanly into master via a
ff-only
## What was done?
Added a GitHub action created via gpt-4 :)
## How Has This Been Tested?
https://github.com/PastaPastaPasta/dash/actions/runs/4703432752/jobs/8341923994
and
https://github.com/PastaPastaPasta/dash/actions/runs/4703457936/jobs/8341980146
for expected pass and expected fail
## Breaking Changes
None, should be back ported to v19.x branch when we get the chance.
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
pls see individual commits
fixes an issue (reported by @strophy recently) where mixing wouldn't
start in a fresh new wallet
not 100% sure but
[99867eb](99867eb769)
might also fix#5350 reported by @splawik21 so this could also be a v19
backport candidate
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
mixing on testnet
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`generateblock` was not aware of Dash-specific txes
```
rpc/mining.cpp:375 (generateblock)
Internal bug detected: 'block.vtx.size() == 1'
```
👍 to @strophy for finding it
## What was done?
<!--- Describe your changes in detail -->
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!--- Please describe in detail how you tested your changes. -->
<!--- Include details of your testing environment, and the tests you ran
to -->
<!--- see how your change affects other areas of the code, etc. -->
## Breaking Changes
<!--- Please describe any breaking changes your code introduces -->
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
We use `pQuorumBaseBlockIndex` name when we shouldn't and we don't check
that quorum types and block indexes provided as input params in llmq
utils satisfy our requirements. This is kind of ok-ish as long as we use
these functions appropriately but it's better to make things clearer and
to have actual checks imo.
noticed this while reviewing #5366
## What was done?
Rename `pQuorumBaseBlockIndex` to `pCycleQuorumBaseBlockIndex`/`pindex`
in a few places. Check that quorum types and block indexes have expected
values.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests locally
## 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
This changes are follow up for backport bitcoin/bitcoin#16060
## What was done?
Buried all hardened dash deployments
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests.
Run dash with option `-reindex` for both mainnet/testnet - both succeed.
## Breaking Changes
No breaking changes, it should be fully compatible.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Move `BuildSimplifiedDiff` to the place it's actually used. This also
resolves 3 circular dependencies we have atm.
## What was done?
mostly trivial move-only changes
## How Has This Been Tested?
it compiles and linter is happy locally
## 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
Implementation of Randomness Beacon Part 2.
This PR is the next step of #5262.
Starting from v20 activation fork, members for quorums are sorted using
(if available) the best CL signature found in Coinbase.
If no CL signature is present yet, then the usual way is used (By using
Blockhash instead)
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
Test `feature_llmq_rotation.py` was updated to cover both rotated and
non-rotated quorums.
2 quorums are mined first to ensure Chainlock are working earlier.
Then dip_24 activation is replaced by v20 activation.
The only direct way to test this change is to make sure that all
expected quorums after v20 activation are properly formed.
Note: A `wait_for_chainlocked_block_all_nodes` is called between every
rotation cycle to ensure that Coinbase will use a different Chainlock
signature.
## Breaking Changes
Yes, quorum members will be calculated differently.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
We had forgotten to harden dip20 and dip24 activation
## What was done?
Hardened dip20 and dip24 activation
## How Has This Been Tested?
Hasn't yet; should do an assumevalid=0 reindex
## Breaking Changes
Hopefully 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)_
---------
Co-authored-by: Konstantin Akimov <knstqq@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Automated guix builds in CI when specifically requested
## What was done?
Any PR with the `build-guix` label added will automatically have the
Guix build ran and the hashes placed in the CI output to compare against
## How Has This Been Tested?
This PR
## 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
`cs_map_quorums` was introduced to protect `mapQuorumsCache` only. We
shouldn't hold it for too long or require it to be held in
`BuildQuorumFromCommitment`.
## What was done?
limit the scope of `cs_map_quorums`
## How Has This Been Tested?
build and run tests locally and in 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
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
