ab22a71429f0f47b3c3582a303c07940aa59cd3e refactor: cast bool to int to silence compiler warning (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
This fixes a compiler warning:
```
node/interfaces.cpp:544:16: warning: use of bitwise '&' with boolean operands [-Wbitwise-instead-of-logical]
return FillBlock(ancestor, ancestor_out, lock, active) & FillBlock(block1, block1_out, lock, active) & FillBlock(block2, block2_out, lock, active);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
&&
node/interfaces.cpp:544:16: note: cast one or both operands to int to silence this warning
node/interfaces.cpp:544:16: warning: use of bitwise '&' with boolean operands [-Wbitwise-instead-of-logical]
return FillBlock(ancestor, ancestor_out, lock, active) & FillBlock(block1, block1_out, lock, active) & FillBlock(block2, block2_out, lock, active);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
&&
node/interfaces.cpp:544:16: note: cast one or both operands to int to silence this warning
2 warnings generated.
```
ACKs for top commit:
sipa:
utACK ab22a71429f0f47b3c3582a303c07940aa59cd3e
theStack:
Concept and code-review ACK ab22a71429f0f47b3c3582a303c07940aa59cd3e
shaavan:
ACK ab22a71429f0f47b3c3582a303c07940aa59cd3e
Tree-SHA512: 84e5aeabc1514a7586ac7c78a8eff1d15a5967dced7b2485b266b6fd79a530e1b22d99ded0a5df39f7806d3c5fd6d9752f08a722cc3be17850a6242c4022ab03
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Follow-up changes for this PR:
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5586/
## What was done?
Span has already "pointer + start + length", extra start/count variables
in function signatures are just duplicates.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional 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
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
The block reward calculation logic in `SetTarget` doesn't work on
superblocks.
## What was done?
Move `CreditPoolDiff` checks out of `ProcessSpecialTxsInBlock` to use
correct block reward.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests
## Breaking Changes
n/a, sb blocks should now be processed correctly, non-sb blocks
shouldn't be affected
## 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
fix 3 gui issues reported about beta2
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
to test ad0c0eb591 (there were no css
issues on my machine with locally compiled binaries): compile, run
to test 09800cff8f: run beta2 guix
compiled binaries with css from this PR e.g. on macos:
`/path/to/Dash-Qt.app/Contents/MacOS/Dash-Qt --regtest --debug-ui
--custom-css-dir=/path/to/dash/src/qt/res/css`
before 139d70701c:
<img width="224" alt="Screenshot 2023-09-30 at 22 02 32"
src="https://github.com/dashpay/dash/assets/1935069/b7a26ae9-f87f-4dde-b1f6-9eb796c22495">
after 139d70701c:
<img width="229" alt="Screenshot 2023-09-30 at 22 02 59"
src="https://github.com/dashpay/dash/assets/1935069/57d92e97-b25d-4035-9d1b-da373e51a574">
## 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
Use Spans instead of const std::vector<T>&
## What was done?
Replaced with Span
## How Has This Been Tested?
Building, ran a few tests
## Breaking Changes
Should be none, please review potential lifetime issues in bls_worker;
it scares me a bit and I don't understand how we know these won't
dangle.
## 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
Implementation of accepted proposal:
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/TREASURY-REALLOCATION-60-20-20
## What was done?
Once Masternode Reward Location Reallocation activates:
- Treasury is bumped to 20% of block subsidy.
- Block reward shares are immediately set to 75% for MN and 25% miners.
(Previous reallocation periods are dropped)
MN reward share should be 75% of block reward in order to represent 60%
of the block subsidy. (according to the proposal)
- `governancebudget` is returned from `getgovernanceinfo` RPC.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`block_reward_reallocation_tests`
## 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
- [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
Help reported incorrect field type
## What was done?
Change field from string to num
## How Has This Been Tested?
Tested 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
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Return by reference is generally not ideal, and especially as there is
only one return path per function, all returns will be done via NRVO.
Additionally, call sites are simpler now.
## What was done?
Refactored to return by value
## How Has This Been Tested?
Building
## Breaking Changes
Should be 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
Unneeded suppressions were present
## What was done?
Removed them
## How Has This Been Tested?
Running linter
## 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
This restores previous behaviour which was changed/broken here
e554d3a02e (diff-0ba691cbdd97c095286e9373ed8d5be87d559234440487956326965e16cbb421R75)
## What was done?
Fix `debug` rpc results
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run rpc, check results
## 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)_
---------
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
the size of size_t is platform-dependent, (de)serialization is done
assuming the the value is 32 bits. changed to uint32_t as index value
cannot be less than zero.
m_address_type is (de)serialized using ser_writedata8, making the maximum
numbers of bits read or written to, 8. AddressType does not have values
below 0, therefore the data type is changed to better reflect the way
it is stored.
there are two problems with "int spending;"
- the integer, which implies that there are gradient states when
there is none, only boolean (vin is spent, vout is UTXO)
- the name, "spending" implies the existence of a middle state,
there is none
a reason why int may have been used is due to needing it in the
comparison struct CMempoolAddressDeltaKeyCompare, though, using
an int isn't necessary as when used with a comparison operator,
a bool is implicitly converted to an int.
see, https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/implicit_conversion
(Integral promotion)
