a57a1d42d52fe51e5b413a1fd3a5ef2b7a2120e3 test: add unit test for wallet watch-only methods involving PubKeys (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
The motivation for this addition was to unit test the function `wallet.cpp:ExtractPubKey()` (see recent change in commit 798a589aff64b83a0844688a661f4bd987c3340c) which is however static and only indirectly available via the public methods `AddWatchOnly()`, `LoadWatchOnly()` and `RemoveWatchOnly()`. Since the first of those methods also stores the addresses to the disk, the second, simpler one was chosen which only operates in memory.
ACKs for top commit:
Sjors:
ACK a57a1d4
instagibbs:
reACK a57a1d42d5
Sjors:
re-ACK a57a1d4
Tree-SHA512: 92a242204ab533022cd848662997372c41815b1265d07b3d96305697f801db29a5ba5668337faf4bea702bec1451972529afd6665927fb142aaf91700a338b26
a49503402b6bc21e3878e151c07529941d36aed0 Make and get the multisig redeemscript and destination in one function instead of two (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
`CreateMultisigRedeemscript()` is changed to `AddAndGetMultisigDestination()` so that the process of constructing the redeemScript and then getting the `CTxDestination` are done in the same function. This allows that function to see what the keys in the multisig are so that the correct address type is returned from `AddAndGetDestinationForScript()`.
This only effects the `createmultisig` and `addmultisigaddress` RPCs and does not change signing logic as #16022 does.
Alternative to #16022 and #16012Fixes#16011
ACKs for commit a49503:
Tree-SHA512: 5b0154a714deea3b2cc3a54beb420c95eeeacf4ca30c40ca80940d9d640f8b03611b0fc14c2f0710bfd8a79e8d27ad7d9ae380b4b83d52b40ab201624f2a63f0
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
These messages are pretty annoying on reindex and shouldn't really be
shown in logs unless you actually need to debug mn payments.
## What was done?
move messages under `MNPAYMENTS` debug category
## How Has This Been Tested?
reindex
## 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
**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. -->
Before this fix, uniqueness of HPMN `platformNodeID` was checked only
while processing a block containing a `ProRegTx` or a `ProUpServTx`.
This is not enough as a `ProRegTx` or `ProUpServTx` containing duplicate
HPMN `platformNodeID` must be rejected at tx broadcast level.
## What was done?
<!--- Describe your changes in detail -->
Checking uniqueness when calling respective RPC and when receiving such
txs.
## 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
- [x] 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
Delayed activation to reexperience rc.6
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
This allows us to have a bit more granular control over GetLLMQ results,
removes code duplication and also optimises things a tiny bit by
replacing "HasLLMQ + GetLLMQParams" calls with simply "GetLLMQParams".
## What was done?
Use `optional` in `GetLLMQ`, drop `HasLLMQ`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, reindex on testnet/mainnet
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Help text for protx legacy versions were adjusted.
## 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
- [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: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
HPMN fields were missing when selecting a HPMN in Masternodes tab of Qt
client.
## What was done?
Return HPMN fields in JSON reply of `CDeterministicMNState`.
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
When verifying signature of `CGovernanceVote`/`CGovernanceObject` we
need to use the active scheme.
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Removed protx_revoke_legacy since it required a BLS secret key and not a
BLS public key.
(BLS scheme is not applicable to secret keys)
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`CDeterministicMNList` stores internally a map containing the hashes of
all properties that needed to be unique.
`pubKeyOperator` don't differ between the two schemes (legacy and
basic(v19)) but their serialisation do: hence their hash.
Because this internal map stores only hashes, then we need to
re-calculate hashes and repopulate.
So when we tried to revoke a masternode after the fork, the `ProUpRevTx`
couldn't be mined because the hash of the `pubKeyOperator` differed.
## What was done?
When retrieving a `CDeterministicMNList` for a given block, if v19 is
active for that block, then we repopulate the internal map.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Without this fix, `feature_dip3_v19.py` is failing with
`failed-calc-cb-mnmerkleroot` (Error encountered 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
- [x] 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
---------
Co-authored-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
<!--
*** 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. -->
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Block 847000 hf should happen somewhere around March 4th. We need mining
nodes to be upgraded to follow that chain and mine correct blocks.
However we don't want v19 to be activated shortly after (~300 blocks),
we want to give it a little bit of time to let (new) platform quorums
form and make sure everything is ok. With this patch we should have ~2
days (instead of half of a day).
## What was done?
bumped v19 activation start time to March 6th
## How Has This Been Tested?
n/a
## Breaking Changes
yes :)
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
After the DIP24 fork, instant locks will still be served by
`llmq_test_instantsend`, since no `llmq_test_dip0024` will be formed
with less than 4 nodes.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
- Added new LLMQ type `llmq_25_67`
- The above LLMQ is added only for Testnet and it is activated with v19
fork.
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
`MIN_MASTERNODE_PROTO_VERSION` was bumped to match latest
`PROTOCOL_VERSION`.
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
9e1cb1adf1800efe429e348650931f2669b0d2c0 [trivial/doc] Fix comment type (Amiti Uttarwar)
8f30260a67166a6ab7c0f33f7ec1990d3c31761e [doc] Update unbroadcast description in RPC results (Amiti Uttarwar)
750456d6f29c63d57af05bfbdd6035bb9c965de2 [trivial] Remove misleading 'const' (Amiti Uttarwar)
fa32e676e5833a5c5fc735ef00c0a80f5fab7a2c [test] Manage node connections better in mempool persist test (Amiti Uttarwar)
1f94bb0c744a103b633c1051e8fbc01e612097dc [doc] Provide rationale for randomization in scheduling. (Amiti Uttarwar)
9c8a55d9cb0ec73f10b196e79b637aa601c0a6b7 [mempool] Don't throw expected error message when upgrading (Amiti Uttarwar)
ba5498318233ab81decbc585e9619d8ffe2df1b0 [test] Test that wallet transactions aren't rebroadcast before 12 hours (Amiti Uttarwar)
00d44a534b4e5ae249b8011360c6b0f7dc731581 [test] P2P connection behavior should meet expectations (Amiti Uttarwar)
bd093ca15de762fdaf0937a0877d17b0c2bce16e [test] updates to unbroadcast test (Amiti Uttarwar)
dab298d9ab5a5a41685f437db9081fa7b395fa73 [docs] add release notes (Amiti Uttarwar)
Pull request description:
This PR is a follow up to #18038 which introduced the idea of an unbroadcast set & focuses mostly on documentation updates and test fixes. One small functionality update to not throw an expected error in `LoadMempool` when you upgrade software versions.
#18895 is another follow up to that addresses other functionality updates.
Background context:
The unbroadcast set is a mechanism for the mempool to track locally submitted transactions (via wallet or RPC). The node does a best-effort of delivering the transactions to the network via retries every 10-15 minutes until either a `GETDATA` is received or the transaction is removed from the mempool.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK 9e1cb1adf1 👁
gzhao408:
ACK [`9e1cb1a`](9e1cb1adf1)
Tree-SHA512: 0cd51c4ca368b9dce92d50d73ec6e9df278a259e609eef2858f24cb8595ad07acc3db781d9eb0c351715f18fca5a2b4526838981fdb34a522427e9dc868bdaa6
651f1d816f054cb9c637f8a99c9360bba381ef58 [test] wait for inital broadcast before comparing mempool entries (gzhao408)
9d3f7eb9860254eb787ebe2734fd6a26bcf365c1 [mempool] sanity check that all unbroadcast txns are in mempool (gzhao408)
a7ebe48b94c5a9195c8eabd193204c499cb4bfdb [rpc] add unbroadcast info to mempool entries and getmempoolinfo (gzhao408)
d16006960443c2efe37c896e46edae9dca86c57d [wallet] remove nLastResend logic (gzhao408)
Pull request description:
Followup to #18038 by amitiuttarwar which introduces the unbroadcast set: "a mechanism for the mempool to track locally submitted transactions" and decreases the frequency of rebroadcast from 10-15 minutes to 12-36 hours.
This PR addresses some of the outstanding TODOs building on top of it:
- remove `nLastResend` logic, which is used to ensure rebroadcast doesn't happen again if no new block has been mined (makes sense in 10-15 min period, but not necessary for 12-36 hour period). (#18038 [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18038#discussion_r416826914))
- expose unbroadcast info via RPCs, for more informative queries and testing (#18038 [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18038#discussion_r416837980))
- add sanity check to verify unbroadcast transactions still exist in mempool before rebroadcasting (#18038 [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18038#discussion_r416861609))
ACKs for top commit:
naumenkogs:
Code review ACK 651f1d816f054cb9c637f8a99c9360bba381ef58
amitiuttarwar:
ACK 651f1d816f054cb9c637f8a99c9360bba381ef58 🎉
MarcoFalke:
Review ACK 651f1d816f054cb9c637f8a99c9360bba381ef58
Tree-SHA512: d5327e95ef39d44152b48df5c610502ae11c168f43dbbfb2885340c93d1ba9426eb3a5794573f5fc843502109cb3ffb63efa3f2db4f8f112efcde8f76d9a8845
d18bf0c0b0506f38256c49f6bcbe5de0098f514a rpc: add missing HelpExampleRpc for getblockfilter (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
From all RPCs in the "blockchain" category, `getblockfilter` is the only one where there is only a CLI example present but not a curl RPC example (all other RPCs in this category have either both or none). This PR adds the missing `HelpExampleRpc` string.
ACKs for top commit:
emilengler:
utACK d18bf0c
Tree-SHA512: b37c11bdef439aa9d5736c9e0e0bbcc19aff876744f0c4e099ca5c67c9ff1293f1f9140f0d167ea13fee5396ae017aa4a0f1bae4f7aec8fa80b46beb421561c1
fb15bfd99e6ed705cb6f7c4dcd1b2a6bc68be79e Fix nit in getblockchaininfo (Steven Roose)
Pull request description:
Noticed that the statistics are not always shown.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK fb15bfd99e6ed705cb6f7c4dcd1b2a6bc68be79e
promag:
ACK fb15bfd99e6ed705cb6f7c4dcd1b2a6bc68be79e.
Tree-SHA512: bccbfdff03107d14967f6530eec0bcada7ba8eb16c61b829119533a73f2ead742a0da6a473b7962b15e25cd685c8f155506ab16d4a95b20352d3fd1b4b0164a3
a33cffbeabcc42137c4a66aa19b7dd1d300e6d73 util: HelpExampleRpc formatting fixup (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
Minor visual fixup of the HelpExampleRpc template; conforms to the JSON-RPC spec as per https://www.jsonrpc.org/specification#examples. (I'm... somewhat embarassed to open such a minor change, but this is what is shown in all the CLI/RPC help docs.)
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK a33cffbeabcc42137c4a66aa19b7dd1d300e6d73
Tree-SHA512: 8f1dee080c224742fff60a33fec6f5fb1d59c9fa51f3f2a67bf2e1837dbfa25f12a69e34518936588940013b0e61f55378b4f1a571c47c3cb081ca5b245e1091
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Overview page shows either wallet info or "Create wallet" button. Unlike
in bitcoin we can switch to other pages even when no wallets are enabled
(because we have Masternodes and Governance tabs) but then there is no
way to return back to Overview page.
## What was done?
Keep Overview tab always enabled. Make a no-wallet groupbox a member of
`WalletFrame` and add logic to switch to it when needed.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`./src/qt/dash-qt --regtest --nowallet`
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
PS. kudos to @thephez for reporting :)
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
In `protx register_hpmn`, `protx register_fund_hpmn`, `protx
register_prepare_hpmn` and `protx update_service_hpmn` the fields
`platformHTTPPort` and `platformP2PPort` were parsed as strings instead
of integers.
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
`update_registrar_legacy` was missing from the protx help output.
## 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
- [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
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Avoid redundant calls to GetLLMQParams
## What was done?
## 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
- [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
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Avoid lots of static_cast's from enums to underlying types. Communicate
intention better
## What was done?
implement c++23 inspired ToUnderlying, then see std::to_underlying and
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/underlying_type; Then, we use
this instead of static_casts for enums -> underlying type
## How Has This Been Tested?
make check
## 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
- [ ] 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: Konstantin Akimov <knstqq@gmail.com>
Since new BLS scheme introduction, a sporadic crash was appearing from
time to time during functional tests.
The crash was an uncaught exception (std::invalid_argument, what="Relic
library error") thrown from BLS operations.
Affected tests: feature_llmq_is_conflicts.py,
feature_llmq_is_migration.py
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
This PR doesn't solve the actual problem, but it protects the node from
crashing by catching exception thrown from BLS.
All BLS aggregation operations weren't calling BLS impl code within a
try catch block.
Now, all aggregations operations are protected from the uncaught
exception.
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`develop` can't sync on mainnet and testnet atm because platform quorums
are already active there but we skip non-hpms nodes when calculating
quorums.
## What was done?
Fixed the code to respect `IsV19Active`. Also dropped
`IsLLMQTypeHPMNOnly` cause it's not used anywhere else and it just makes
things more confusing imo.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Can successfully sync on mainnet/testnet
## Breaking Changes
n/a, fixes breaking changes introduced earlier :)
## 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
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
This refactoring helps to make code more specific and clear.
There's using syntax feature from modern C++ such as 'enum class',
structure bindings in loops, declaration variables inside if/switch
statements, etc.
## What was done?
This PR is based on @PastaPastaPasta 's PR
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/4472
There excluded changes related to using std::optional. Let's decide
firstly about `Result` class: https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5109
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests
## Breaking Changes
No breaking changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: Pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Migration does too many things when it should really be just deser ->
ser and no extra logic. Implemented changes to take as short migration
path as possible.
## What was done?
Switched from processing diffs and updating mn lists to simply call
deser and ser operations.
Also skipping `AddMN` and filling internal map directly because:
1. we can trust our local db on migration and need no extra checks here;
2. we care about `mnMap` only cause it's the one that is serialized
later, we don't care about ids or unique properties here.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run the node, migration succeeds.
As a side effect the migration process is ~20% faster on my mac now
(takes ~11 minutes on mainnet instead of ~14 minutes before).
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
While working on #5213 I noticed that `CDeterministicMNListDiff` deser
is one of the top cpu consuming operations. This can be improved.
## What was done?
Switched from `map` to `unordered_map`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run node, everything still works. Applying this patch on top of #5213
gives another ~20% improvement in migration time on my mac: from ~14
minutes originally to ~8 minutes with both patches applied.
## Breaking Changes
Shouldn't be any. In most cases we just `emplace` and loop over
`updatedMNs`. The only place we use `find` is
`CMNAuth::NotifyMasternodeListChanged` and slight potential performance
drop there is acceptable imo given the improvement in deser/migration
time.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
We use `GetMnType` in some critical parts of code where we process data
from blocks and such. Having `assert` called there makes me nervous 😅
## What was done?
We should simply consider all unknown types invalid instead of crashing
here. Introduced new dummy mn type for which no real mn can ever satisfy
conditions.
## How Has This Been Tested?
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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
