Used to avoid the following error:
```
In file included from test/fuzz/addition_overflow.cpp:7:
In file included from ./test/fuzz/util.h:26:
In file included from ./test/util/setup_common.h:16:
In file included from ./txmempool.h:31:
In file included from /builds/dashpay/dash/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/include/boost/optional.hpp:15:
In file included from /builds/dashpay/dash/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/include/boost/optional/optional.hpp:47:
In file included from /builds/dashpay/dash/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/include/boost/type_traits/is_nothrow_move_assignable.hpp:16:
/builds/dashpay/dash/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/include/boost/type_traits/has_nothrow_assign.hpp:65:7: error: builtin __has_nothrow_assign is deprecated; use __is_nothrow_assignable instead [-Werror,-Wdeprecated-builtins]
BOOST_HAS_NOTHROW_ASSIGN(T)
^
/builds/dashpay/dash/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/include/boost/type_traits/intrinsics.hpp:205:43: note: expanded from macro 'BOOST_HAS_NOTHROW_ASSIGN'
^
/builds/dashpay/dash/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/include/boost/serialization/serialization.hpp:61:1: note: in instantiation of template class 'boost::has_nothrow_assign<unsigned int>' requested here
BOOST_STRONG_TYPEDEF(unsigned int, version_type)
^
/builds/dashpay/dash/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/include/boost/serialization/strong_typedef.hpp:42:57: note: expanded from macro 'BOOST_STRONG_TYPEDEF'
D& operator=(const D& rhs) BOOST_NOEXCEPT_IF(boost::has_nothrow_assign<T>::value) {t = rhs.t; return *this;} \
```
clang warnings are quite noisy and easily cause gitlab's logs
to spill over, preventing logging of dash-specific warnings and errors
from making it to the CI logs.
our dependencies mostly track upstream so regardless, we cannot
act upon those warnings, so it's better to just suppress them if they're
too noisy.
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Since v19, Evo nodes are paid 4x blocks in a row.
This needs to be reverted when MN Reward Reallocation activates.
## What was done?
Starting from MN Reward Reallocation activation, Evo nodes are paid one
block in a row (like regular masternodes).
In addition, `nConsecutivePayments` isn't incremented anymore for Evo
nodes.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_llmq_hpmn.py` with MN Reward Reallocation activation.
## Breaking Changes
no
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: Konstantin Akimov <knstqq@gmail.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
It partially resolves issue https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/5471
Better unit tests are needed to validate changes in ProTx implementation
such as this PR: https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5463
## What was done?
- Invalid ProTx transactions are checked more strictly. The flag "tx is
failed" is not enough now for test to succeed, but error code should
matched with expected error.
- Duplicated implementations of tests for "valid" and "invalid
transaction" are changed to more general code.
- Added extra log output with tx ID for easier debug - to see which
exactly tx is failed in test
- Supported more by 256 txes in one json file
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit tests
## Breaking Changes
N/A
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [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
LLMQContext uses RAII to initialize all members. Ensured that all
members always initialized correctly in proper order if LLMQContext
exists.
BlockAssembler, CChainState use too many agruments and they are making
wrong assumption that members of LLMQContext can be constructed and used
independently, but that's not true. Instead, let's pass LLMQContext
whenever possible.
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
https://github.com/dashpay/dash-issues/issues/52
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional test and introduce no breaking changes.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
- We want to enable use of the AWS-hosted GitHub Actions runners, now
that [corresponding
infra](https://github.com/dcginfra/tf-aws-gh-runner/pull/8/files#diff-ad98d33884a302f6c747dc6b326c6b3af3887f2ec25e0bd7a0395f10444818f3)
exists to deploy these runners
## What was done?
Add new labels and workflow dispatch button to allow runner testing
## How Has This Been Tested?
Pending testing in CI
## Breaking Changes
None
## 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
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
We have plenty of block space. Having `fallbackfee` disabled by default
is needlessly annoying.
## What was done?
Bump `DEFAULT_FALLBACK_FEE` to `1000`, same as it is on `master`
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/wallet/wallet.h#L68
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, send txes on testnet
## Breaking Changes
should be none
## 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
RPC help for mempoolentry incorrectly called the "instantsend" field
"time". The "instantsend" and "unbroadcast" fields were also in a
different order than the actual response.
## What was done?
Changed "time" -> "instantsend" and flipped order of
"instantsend"/"unbroadcast"
## How Has This Been Tested?
Built and checked locally
## 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
- [ ] 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)_
V19 is active on mainnet/testnet now, no need to check activation bits
anymore. This PR also bumps `MinBIP9WarningHeight` to
post-v19-activation height which should stop `unknown new rules
activated (versionbit 8)` warning from appearing.
Bury v19, bump `MinBIP9WarningHeight`
Run tests, reindex on mainnet/testnet.
n/a
- [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
Current implementation of MnEhfTx is not matched with DIP-0023, this PR
fixes it. It is a prior work for
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5469
## What was done?
- requestID is fixed from `clsig{quorumHeight}` to `mnhf{versionBit}` +
fixes for signature validation properly
- v20 is minimal height to accept MnEHF special transactions
- versionBit is not BLS version - removed unrelated wrong code and
validations
- TxMempool will accept MnEHF transaction even if inputs/outputs are
zeroes and no fee
- implemented python's serialization/deserialization of MnEHF
transactions for future using in functional tests
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run functional/unit tests. Beside that there's new functional test in
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5469 that actually test format of
transaction and signature validation - to be merged later.
## Breaking Changes
Payload of MnEhf tx is changed, related consensus rules are changed.
## 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
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Added missing sources files (index, interfaces, node, logging, util) in
CMake so they can be indexed by IDE.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Fixes issue #5497.
## What was done?
Checks if settings file is empty, and deletes it if that's the case.
It will will be generated with default value `{}` afterwards.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Running Dash Qt on regtest masternode with `--nocleanup` and
`./src/qt/dash-qt --regtest --datadir=`
## Breaking Changes
No
## 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)_
Refusing to process `dsq` will result in node not being able to process
`dstx`es later.
n/a
- [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)_
`IsEnabled()` is checked inside anyway. Not starting the scheduler on
init results in no mixing on nodes with dynamically loaded wallets.
- [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)_
`GetVersion` expects `is_basic_scheme_active`, not
`is_bls_legacy_scheme`
see commits
`make check`
luckily only tests are affected
- [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)_
- make progress calculations sane
- show progress in GUI but only when you need 100+ new keys
- make it stop on shutdown request
- spam less in debug.log
run tests, run `keypoolrefill` with `1100` (add 100 keys, no gui popup)
and `10000` (100+ keys, progress bar) on testnet wallet, check logs,
verify it can be interrupted on shutdown
n/a
- [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)_
Allow `upgradetohd` in IBD, better errors, no GUI lock-up
Pls see individual commits. Most of it is changes in whitespaces, might
want to use ?w=1 to review i.e.
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5455/files?w=1
run tests, try `upgradetohd` on testnet
n/a
- [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
TL;DR: Should hopefully fix crashes like
https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/jobs/4522256293
In dashd we flush all callbacks first and then destroy `g_txindex`. In
tests we had to move `g_txindex` to `TestChainSetup` and its dtor is
executed first, so the order is broken. It also explains why this crash
happens so rare. In most cases tx index is up to date and you need some
kind of a hiccup for scheduler to lag behind a bit. Basically, between
`g_txindex.reset()` and `FlushBackgroundCallbacks`
`BaseIndex::BlockConnected` finally arrives. But it’s processed on a
(now) null instance hence a crash. If it’s earlier - it’s processed
normally, if it’s later - it’s flushed without execution, so there is a
tiny window to catch this crash.
## What was done?
Give tx index a bit of time to process everything
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests (but this crash is rare 🤷♂️ )
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
It's super slow for wallets with 100.000s of txes to process lots of
notifications produced by rescan. Skip them all and simply refresh the
whole wallet instead. In my case (500k+ txes testnet wallet) gui update
after `rescanblockchain` time is down from _forever_ to ~30 seconds.
Same for `wipewallettxes true` (#5451 ). Gui update after
`wipewallettxes`/`wipewallettxes false` is instant (cause there are no
txes anymore) vs _forever_ before the patch.
## What was done?
refresh the whole wallet when notification queue is above 10K operations
actual changes (ignoring whitespaces):
d013cb4f5c
## How Has This Been Tested?
running on top of #5451 and #5452 , wiping and rescanning w/ and w/out
this patch.
## Breaking Changes
should be none
## 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
Given the hard fork that happened on testnet, there is now lots of the
transactions that were made on the fork that is no longer valid. Some
transactions could be relayed and mined again but some like coinjoin
mixing won't be relayed because of 0 fee and transactions spending
coinbases from the forked branch are no longer valid at all.
## What was done?
Introduce `wipewallettxes` RPC and `wipetxes` command for `dash-wallet`
tool to be able to get rid of some/all txes in the wallet.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, use rpc/command on testnet 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 _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Added the filter `hpmn` for both `masternodelist` and `protx list` rpcs.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
Calling this RPC on Testnet.
## 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
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
@ogabrielides @kittywhiskers I somehow failed to add you guys to the
list of v19.2 contributors 🙈 sorry!
## 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)_
