## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
```
POTENTIAL DEADLOCK DETECTED
Previous lock order was:
(2) 'cs_main' in governance/governance.cpp:1096 (in thread 'init')
(1) 'cs' in governance/governance.cpp:1096 (in thread 'init')
Current lock order is:
(1) 'cs' in governance/governance.cpp:778 (in thread 'msghand')
'cs' in governance/object.cpp:104 (in thread 'msghand')
(2) '::cs_main' in validation.cpp:117 (in thread 'msghand')
```
#5021 follow-up
## What was done?
Lock `cs_main` earlier
## How Has This Been Tested?
run dashd on testnet
## 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
- [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 shouldn't have changed it in the first place if we want to avoid
additional migration/reindexing. I did not think about it when I
proposed this patch in #5021, sorry 🙈 Thanks @ogabrielides for noticing
👍#5021 follow-up
## 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
- [ ] 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
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
Provide a general summary of your changes in the Title above
Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it
improves
Dash Core user experience or Dash Core developer experience
significantly:
* Any test improvements or new tests that improve coverage are always
welcome.
* All other changes should have accompanying unit tests (see
`src/test/`) or
functional tests (see `test/`). Contributors should note which tests
cover
modified code. If no tests exist for a region of modified code, new
tests
should accompany the change.
* Bug fixes are most welcome when they come with steps to reproduce or
an
explanation of the potential issue as well as reasoning for the way the
bug
was fixed.
* Features are welcome, but might be rejected due to design or scope
issues.
If a feature is based on a lot of dependencies, contributors should
first
consider building the system outside of Dash Core, if possible.
-->
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
<!--- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? -->
<!--- If it fixes an open issue, please link to the issue here. -->
This fixes an issue where qfcommit messages can be replayed from the
past, then are validated and propagated to other nodes. This patch
changes it so that old qfcommits are not relayed.
## 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. -->
Deployed to a node, and ensured that the log messages are shown.
## 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. -->
- [ ] 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**
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
Provide a general summary of your changes in the Title above
Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it
improves
Dash Core user experience or Dash Core developer experience
significantly:
* Any test improvements or new tests that improve coverage are always
welcome.
* All other changes should have accompanying unit tests (see
`src/test/`) or
functional tests (see `test/`). Contributors should note which tests
cover
modified code. If no tests exist for a region of modified code, new
tests
should accompany the change.
* Bug fixes are most welcome when they come with steps to reproduce or
an
explanation of the potential issue as well as reasoning for the way the
bug
was fixed.
* Features are welcome, but might be rejected due to design or scope
issues.
If a feature is based on a lot of dependencies, contributors should
first
consider building the system outside of Dash Core, if possible.
-->
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
<!--- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? -->
<!--- If it fixes an open issue, please link to the issue here. -->
This fixes an issue where qfcommit messages can be replayed from the
past, then are validated and propagated to other nodes. This patch
changes it so that old qfcommits are not relayed.
## 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. -->
Deployed to a node, and ensured that the log messages are shown.
## 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. -->
- [ ] 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**
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
Provide a general summary of your changes in the Title above
Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it
improves
Dash Core user experience or Dash Core developer experience
significantly:
* Any test improvements or new tests that improve coverage are always
welcome.
* All other changes should have accompanying unit tests (see
`src/test/`) or
functional tests (see `test/`). Contributors should note which tests
cover
modified code. If no tests exist for a region of modified code, new
tests
should accompany the change.
* Bug fixes are most welcome when they come with steps to reproduce or
an
explanation of the potential issue as well as reasoning for the way the
bug
was fixed.
* Features are welcome, but might be rejected due to design or scope
issues.
If a feature is based on a lot of dependencies, contributors should
first
consider building the system outside of Dash Core, if possible.
-->
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
<!--- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? -->
<!--- If it fixes an open issue, please link to the issue here. -->
minimizing global uses
## What was done?
<!--- Describe your changes in detail -->
Started the deglobalization, a future PR should be done to continue this
deglobalization
## 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 -->
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
- [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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
22b066020c build: match detection of Win32 libraries with mimalloc (#60)
03268b3a02 Merge pull request #59 from kittywhiskers/repair_subtree
3d2e7a183e depends: commit microsoft/mimalloc@91ba1f37 to source tree as 44314dd9
7a4d1a01fa depends: remove mangled 'depends/mimalloc' subdirectory
44314dd972 Squashed 'depends/mimalloc/' content from commit 91ba1f37
8383f081bd dashbls: replace flaky minialloc with microsoft/mimalloc@91ba1f37, add as vendored dependency (#55)
85b7e61b55 fix: Should not check validity for legacy G1 and G2 in FromBytes (#58)
7457939dd5 chore/fix: bump Catch2 to v2.13.10 (#57)
git-subtree-dir: src/dashbls
git-subtree-split: 22b066020c14bd162022c73f90fc7c940f4acdda
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Fix for the `importelectrumwallet` issue report in #5106
## What was done?
<!--- Describe your changes in detail -->
Check the `private_key` field for prefixes set off by ":" when
processing electrum CSV/JSON backup files.
## 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. -->
Tested locally by importing a backup modified to include both styles of
private key formatting
## Breaking Changes
<!--- Please describe any breaking changes your code introduces -->
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
- [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**
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
a3abeec33a6ae903e514c7a7b6f587b7c17288a0 policy/fees: remove a floating-point division by zero (Antoine Poinsot)
c36869bbf6a38626833b4aea53be024c48ede475 policy/fees: unify some duplicated for loops (Antoine Poinsot)
569d92a4d2924a1f6d50775980b591552f6372e7 policy/fees: small readability improvements (Antoine Poinsot)
5b8cb35621891b681f9b49a9de5f6d8da4ccdecc policy/fee: remove requireGreater parameter in EstimateMedianVal() (Antoine Poinsot)
dba8196b447b6a85be66890db70928100e867d8b policy/fees: correct decay explanation comments (Antoine Poinsot)
Pull request description:
This (*does not* change behaviour and) cleans up a bit of unused code in `CBlockPolicyEstimator` and friends, and slightly improves readability of the rest (comment correction etc.). The last commit is a small reformatting one which I could not resist but am happy to remove at will.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
utACK a3abeec33a6ae903e514c7a7b6f587b7c17288a0
MarcoFalke:
ACK a3abeec33a6ae903e514c7a7b6f587b7c17288a0 💹
ariard:
Code Review ACK a3abeec.
Tree-SHA512: b7620bcd23a2ffa8f7ed859467868fc0f6488279e3ee634f6d408872cb866ad086a037e8ace76599a05b7e9c07768adf5016b0ae782d153196b9c030db4c34a5
b00266fe0cf05fe6044f471105ce2bfed4349626 refactor: replace pointers by references within tx_verify.{h,cpp} (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This PR gets rid of another unnecessary use of raw pointers, similar to PR #19053 (see also issue #19062 where useful commands for finding potential candidates are listed) but in the tx verification module.
For the functions `CalculateSequenceLocks()` and `SequenceLocks()`, the `prevHeights` vector parameter type is changed to be passed as a reference. Note that there were no checks for null pointers -- if one would pass `nullptr` to one of the functions, the following line would immediately lead to a crash:
dcacea096e/src/consensus/tx_verify.cpp (L32)
ACKs for top commit:
Empact:
Code Review ACK b00266fe0c
Tree-SHA512: 0eb71591467905434082029128bdca4df94988c372af40dca325654f6c002c72a00c73776cb5e72d6de2b2f218649211a5dbf19300a2e01f1841d6034e0f01e0
fa49db7eac doc: Clarify sendrawtransaction::maxfeerate==0 help (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Used a lot in e.g. the tests: `git grep 'maxfeerate=0)' test`
ACKs for commit fa49db:
promag:
ACK fa49db7.
jonatack:
ACK fa49db7eac
Tree-SHA512: cb3fa10960f45606c3599b76c48666a663e5c44cfb7c29bab5d44caa7dc6cb57aaac81cb9b173e079dde01d07c5363c99416f25303a8fd41010928118474a741
6659810e2f38994813aa9d7644d570ae0152fa2c test: use named args for sendrawtransaction calls (Jon Atack)
5c1cd78b7e582660a78d9d9dec673967a6b78936 doc: improve rawtransaction code/test docs (Jon Atack)
acc14c50932c7353f94d3d4367d05021606e0ca9 test: fix incorrect value in rpc_rawtransaction.py (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
Follow-up to PR #16521.
- Fix incorrect value in rpc_rawtransaction test as per https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16521/files#r325842308
- Improve the code docs
- Use named arguments as per https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16521/files#r310715127
Happy to squash or keep only the first commit if the others are too fixup-y.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK 6659810e2f38994813aa9d7644d570ae0152fa2c
Tree-SHA512: bf5258f23802ab3ba3defb8791097e08e63f3e2af21023f832cd270dc88d1fa04349e921d69f9f5fedac5dce5cd3c1cc46b48febbede4bc18dccb8be994565b2
2599d13c9417dc8c5107535521173687ec5e6c2f rpc: Remove deprecated migration code (Vasil Dimov)
Pull request description:
Don't accept a second argument to `sendrawtransaction` and
`testmempoolaccept` of type `bool`. Actually even the code before this
change would not accept `bool`, but it would print a long explanatory
message when rejecting it: "Second argument must be numeric (maxfeerate)
and no longer supports a boolean. To allow a transaction with high fees,
set maxfeerate to 0."
This was scheduled for removal in 6c0a6f73e.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK 2599d13c9417dc8c5107535521173687ec5e6c2f 📅
Tree-SHA512: e2c74c0bde88e20149d0deab0845851bb3979143530a6bae4f46769d61b607ad2e2347f8969093c2461a80c47661732dc0b3def140f8ce84081719adda3b3811
2dfd6834ef8737e16e4b96df0c459f30a0721d6c test: Add test for default maxfeerate in sendrawtransaction (Joonmo Yang)
261843e4bef96ab296a9775819a99bfa60cad743 wallet/rpc: Use the default maxfeerate value as BTC/kB (Joonmo Yang)
Pull request description:
Fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16382
This patch tries to treat `maxfeerate` in sendrawtransaction/testmempoolaccept RPC as a rate(BTC/kB) instead of an absolute value(BTC).
The included test case checks if the new behavior works correctly, by using the transaction with an absolute fee of ~0.02BTC, where the fee rate is ~0.2BTC/kB.
This test should be failing if the default `maxfeerate` is 0.1BTC, but pass if the default value is 0.1BTC/kB
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK 2dfd6834ef8737e16e4b96df0c459f30a0721d6c (ACKs by Sjors and MarcoFalke above for trivially different code)
Tree-SHA512: a1795bffe8a182acef8844797955db1f60bb0c0ded97148f3572dc265234d5219271a3a7aa0b6418a43f73b2b2720ef7412ba169c99bb1cdcac52051f537d6af
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
Provide a general summary of your changes in the Title above
Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it
improves
Dash Core user experience or Dash Core developer experience
significantly:
* Any test improvements or new tests that improve coverage are always
welcome.
* All other changes should have accompanying unit tests (see
`src/test/`) or
functional tests (see `test/`). Contributors should note which tests
cover
modified code. If no tests exist for a region of modified code, new
tests
should accompany the change.
* Bug fixes are most welcome when they come with steps to reproduce or
an
explanation of the potential issue as well as reasoning for the way the
bug
was fixed.
* Features are welcome, but might be rejected due to design or scope
issues.
If a feature is based on a lot of dependencies, contributors should
first
consider building the system outside of Dash Core, if possible.
-->
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
<!--- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? -->
<!--- If it fixes an open issue, please link to the issue here. -->
## What was done?
<!--- Describe your changes in detail -->
It was requested by service desk to hide old banned masternodes when
calling rpc `masternodelist`.
The period from which a masternode is considered old banned is more than
a `SuperblockCycle`.
| Network | SuperblockCycle |
| ------------- |:-------------:|
| Mainnet | 16616 |
| Testnet | 24 |
| Devnet | 24 |
| Regtest | 10 |
The new mode `recent` was added to in order to hide old banned
masternodes.
Note: If the mode `recent` is used, then the reply mode is `JSON` (can
be additionally filtered)
## 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
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] 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
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
Provide a general summary of your changes in the Title above
Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it
improves
Dash Core user experience or Dash Core developer experience
significantly:
* Any test improvements or new tests that improve coverage are always
welcome.
* All other changes should have accompanying unit tests (see
`src/test/`) or
functional tests (see `test/`). Contributors should note which tests
cover
modified code. If no tests exist for a region of modified code, new
tests
should accompany the change.
* Bug fixes are most welcome when they come with steps to reproduce or
an
explanation of the potential issue as well as reasoning for the way the
bug
was fixed.
* Features are welcome, but might be rejected due to design or scope
issues.
If a feature is based on a lot of dependencies, contributors should
first
consider building the system outside of Dash Core, if possible.
-->
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
<!--- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? -->
<!--- If it fixes an open issue, please link to the issue here. -->
## 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. -->
Hasn't been
## 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
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] 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
