# Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Fixed some clang-tidy warnings
## What was done?
used more if-init
## How Has This Been Tested?
built
## 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)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Noticed a couple of things while I was trying to figure out if an
[issue](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5627#discussion_r1367153099)
@knst mentioned in #5627 could actually exist:
1. `GetPaymentsLimit()` won't work correctly with historical blocks rn.
We don't use it that way internally but it could be done via rpc and it
should provide correct results.
2. superblock params on regtest are too small to test them properly
3. because of (2) and a huge v20 activation window (comparing to sb
params) `feature_governance.py` doesn't test v20 switching states.
There's also no "sb on v20 activation block" test.
~NOTE: based on #5639 atm~
## What was done?
fix it, pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
run 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
- [ ] 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
Small dip0024 related cleanups, regtest only.
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
## 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
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
As discovered during platform testing by @shumkov , it seems as the
chain can halt in miner if somehow mempool would have several
transactions that are somehow invalid (maybe too low fee or something
else). They can't be mined, but miner can't prepare a valid block with
correct Credit Pool amount.
It is indeed can happen although I haven't reproduced it with functional
tests at the moment 🤷♂️
## What was done?
Refactored and simplified a logic of Credit Pool amount of validation
and added one more layer of validation: after all transaction are
actually added to block by miner, it is recalculated one more time.
Also used correct `pindexPrev` instead Tip() for EHF signals.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Before this changes platform failed with this error and chain halt:
```
2023-10-20T06:20:16Z (mocktime: 2023-10-20T06:28:29Z) ERROR: ConnectBlock(DASH): CheckCreditPoolDiffForBlock for block 9d635e1fd0d7a8a5bf16ce158d3a39cbf903864bb6d671769836ea7db6055230 failed with bad-cbtx-asse locked-amount
```
With changes from this PR platform is generate the asset-lock
transactions that are included to block and chain is not halt:
```
2023-10-27T10:45:37Z (mocktime: 2023-10-27T14:37:22Z) GetCreditPoolDiffForBlock: CCreditPool is CCreditPool(locked=32100015, currentLimit=32100015)
```
unit/functional tests are succeed.
## Breaking Changes
N/A; no 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
- [ ] 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
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
935acdcc79d1dc5ac04a83b92e5919ddbfa29329 refactor: modernize the implementation of uint256.* (pasta)
Pull request description:
- Constructors of uint256 to utilize Span instead of requiring a std::vector
- converts m_data into a std::array
- Prefers using `WIDTH` instead of `sizeof(m_data)`
- make all the things constexpr
- replace C style functions with c++ equivalents
- memset -> std::fill
This may also be replaced by std::memset, but I think that std::fill is more idiomatic of modern c++ and readable.
- memcpy -> std::copy
Note: In practice, implementations of std::copy avoid multiple assignments and use bulk copy functions such as std::memmove if the value type is TriviallyCopyable and the iterator types satisfy LegacyContiguousIterator. (https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/copy)
This could also likely be replaced by std::memcpy, but as said above, I believe the using std::copy is the more c++ way to do anything and is almost guaranteed to compile to the same asm
- memcmp -> std::memcmp
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 935acdcc79d1dc5ac04a83b92e5919ddbfa29329
hebasto:
Approach ACK 935acdcc79d1dc5ac04a83b92e5919ddbfa29329.
aureleoules:
reACK 935acdcc79d1dc5ac04a83b92e5919ddbfa29329
john-moffett:
ACK 935acdcc79d1dc5ac04a83b92e5919ddbfa29329
stickies-v:
Approach ACK 935acdcc7
Tree-SHA512: 4f1ba54ff2198eea0e505d41e73d552c84c60f6878d5c85a94a8ab57f39afc94ef8d79258e7afd01fa84ec2a99f4404bb877eecd671f65e1ee9273f3129fc650
04fee75bacb9ec3bceff1246ba6c8ed8a8759548 Use ReadLE64 in uint256::GetUint64() instead of duplicating logic (Pieter Wuille)
Pull request description:
No need to have a (naive) copy of the `ReadLE64` logic inside `uint256::GetUint64`, when we have an optimized function for exactly that.
ACKs for top commit:
davidgumberg:
ACK 04fee75bacb9ec3bceff1246ba6c8ed8a8759548
jonatack:
ACK 04fee75bacb9ec3bceff1246ba6c8ed8a8759548 review, this use of ReadLE64() is similar to the existing invocation by Num3072::Num3072(), sanity checked that before and after this change GetUint64() returns the same result (debug build, clang 13)
Tree-SHA512: 0fc2681536a18d82408411bcc6d5c6445fb96793fa43ff4021cd2933d46514c725318da35884f428d1799023921f33f8af091ef428ceb96a50866ac53a345356
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
This reverts #5636 and introduces 2 similar cmd-line/config params which
are made specifically for regtest. Turned out Platform guys actually
still need smth like that for local testing #5259.
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests but we don't really have(/need?) tests for this.
## 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)_
cc @shumkov
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
sb produced by sentinel:
>"DataString": ... \"payment_amounts\": \"20.00000000|20.00000000\", ...
>...
> "YesCount": 83,
sb produced by core:
>"DataString": ... \"payment_amounts\": \"20.00|20.00\", ...
> "YesCount": 13,
These 2 triggers are for the same block (900552), proposal hashes and
addresses are also the same but the difference in `payment_amounts`
format makes it look like a different trigger for core and this creates
a race.
## What was done?
Use `ValueFromAmount` instead of `FormatMoney` to avoid trimming
## 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
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
fix: possible assert call if nHeight in CDeterministicMNListDiff is
higher than Tip
Example of new log:
```
2023-09-28T17:35:50Z GetProjectedMNPayeesAtChainTip WARNING pindex is nullptr due to height=914160 chain height=914159
```
instead assert call:
```
...
#6 0x00007ffff7a33b86 in __assert_fail (assertion=0x55555783afd2 "pindex", file=0x5555577f2ed8 "llmq/utils.cpp", line=730,
function=0x5555577f2448 "bool llmq::utils::IsMNRewardReallocationActive(const CBlockIndex*)") at ./assert/assert.c:101
#7 0x0000555555ab7daf in llmq::utils::IsMNRewardReallocationActive (pindex=<optimized out>) at llmq/utils.cpp:730
#8 0x00005555559458ad in CDeterministicMNList::GetProjectedMNPayees (this=this@entry=0x7fffffffc690, pindex=0x0, nCount=<optimized out>, nCount@entry=2147483647)
at evo/deterministicmns.cpp:231
#9 0x000055555594614f in CDeterministicMNList::GetProjectedMNPayeesAtChainTip (this=this@entry=0x7fffffffc690, nCount=nCount@entry=2147483647) at evo/deterministicmns.cpp:216
#10 0x00005555558c9f51 in MasternodeList::updateDIP3List (this=this@entry=0x55555908cfd0) at qt/masternodelist.cpp:194
#11 0x00005555558ca9a0 in MasternodeList::updateDIP3ListScheduled (this=0x55555908cfd0) at qt/masternodelist.cpp:157
#12 0x000055555684a60f in void doActivate<false>(QObject*, int, void**) ()
#13 0x00005555568525b1 in QTimer::timerEvent(QTimerEvent*) ()
#14 0x0000555556844ce5 in QObject::event(QEvent*) ()
#15 0x0000555556ac3252 in QApplicationPrivate::notify_helper(QObject*, QEvent*) ()
#16 0x000055555681e6b8 in QCoreApplication::sendEvent(QObject*, QEvent*) ()
#17 0x000055555686de2a in QTimerInfoList::activateTimers() ()
#18 0x000055555686be84 in QEventDispatcherUNIX::processEvents(QFlags<QEventLoop::ProcessEventsFlag>) ()
#19 0x00005555569bf8a2 in QXcbUnixEventDispatcher::processEvents(QFlags<QEventLoop::ProcessEventsFlag>) ()
#20 0x000055555681caf6 in QEventLoop::exec(QFlags<QEventLoop::ProcessEventsFlag>) ()
#21 0x0000555556825f8a in QCoreApplication::exec() ()
...
```
## What was done?
ClientModel returns now a pair: MNList and CBlockIndex; so, we always
know the which one has been used even if current chain is switched.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run on my localhost from `c034ff0c2606142ba3e8894bc74f693b87374e5c` -
aborted with backtrace like above.
With both of commit - no assert more.
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`gobject count all`
before:
>Governance Objects: 1195 (Proposals: 9, Triggers: 1186, Other: 0;
Erased: 1), Votes: 135064
after (in 10-ish minutes after gov sync is done):
>Governance Objects: 11 (Proposals: 9, Triggers: 2, Other: 0; Erased:
1), Votes: 702
I _think_ it happens when a node can't follow the right chain for some
reason but it keeps receiving triggers and votes from other nodes which
means triggers never expire on such node. This wouldn't be a problem for
us if we wouldn't reorg testnet/devnets from time to time. Once we reorg
the stuck node happily spams us with all the triggers it saved in the
meantime.
## What was done?
2 sb cycles into the future should be enough for all legit triggers,
drop the ones that have their height even higher
## How Has This Been Tested?
run a node, check rpc
## 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
Dropped all changes made so far to be able to sync Testnet.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
Testnet syncing obviously
## 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)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Should not be 2 forks in one version
## What was done?
- Asset Unlock transactions (withdrawals) should be available only in
MN_RR fork
- MN_RR should not be auto-activated on Main net without intentional
release of code (and not by spork), but they are need on test net to
test platform.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests
## Breaking Changes
Yes (see "what was done")
## 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
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Implementation of accepted proposal:
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/expedite-60-20-20-reallocation
## What was done?
Activates changers brought in #5588 on `v20` hard fork instead of
`mn_rr`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests
## Breaking Changes
Again, Testnet sync is broken
## 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
When expecting a hard fork, we manually calculate activation heights.
## What was done?
Returning expected activation height for BIP9 softporks in `locked_in`
status in `getblockchaininfo` RPC.
## 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
We went from milliseconds to microseconds for these silently in #5616🙈
## What was done?
make it milliseconds again
## How Has This Been Tested?
n/a
## 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)_
fabea6d404571d046365f4f083da3569d2cbf4f7 net: Run clang-format on protocol.h (MarcoFalke)
facdeea2b25ef36e37b6ada58ea390a72d11a4b2 net: Remove un-actionable TODO (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
The first commit removes a TODO that is infeasible to solve. Currently, most (de)serializable classes in Bitcoin Core have public members. For example `CMessageHeader`, `FlatFilePos`, `CBlock`, `CTransaction`, `CCoin`, ...
So either this TODO comment should apply to all classes or to none. Fix that discrepancy by removing it from the source code for now. If deemed important, the TODO can be discussed in a brainstorming issue later.
Also run clang format on the header file in a new commit. Happy to drop this commit if it is too controversial, but I think it is trivial to review and makes the workflow of developers using clang-format-diff easier.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK fabea6d404571d046365f4f083da3569d2cbf4f7
naumenkogs:
ACK fabea6d. Not sure why that TODO was there in the first place, but Marco's justification seems correct.
hebasto:
ACK fabea6d404571d046365f4f083da3569d2cbf4f7, agree with both changes: removing TODO and applying the `clang-format-diff.py`.
Tree-SHA512: b79ae07be27e5a40fc9f411a5e9ae91aecb2fdedbcbf74699614a1004f4ef816bf396903ec6c06eb1395fd83a2047620c7583acbaadfb8c4e613319a63062c3c
4444dbf4d5047dd1c92973f7167a74a0779e61a3 gui: Remove un-actionable TODO (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
With encryption turned on by default for all wallets in consideration (#18889), I believe that wallet decryption will not be implemented ever or at least any time soon. So remove that TODO comment for now. If deemed important, a brainstorming issue can be opened instead.
Also remove some TODOs in the RPC console, which I don't understand. Maybe the gui was meant to show the debug log interactively? In any case, if deemed important, this should be filed as a brainstorming feature request, so that trade-offs of different solutions can be discussed.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Thanks. ACK 4444dbf4d5047dd1c92973f7167a74a0779e61a3
achow101:
ACK 4444dbf4d5047dd1c92973f7167a74a0779e61a3
Tree-SHA512: f7ddb37a14178f575da5409ea1c34e34bde37d79b2b56eaaf606a069e2b91c9d7b734529f5c68664b2fa5aa831117c8d19cce823743671cd6c31b81d68b8c70c
fa32cc0682a0aa3420e6a11031721fcb6c50fa44 doc: Remove fee delta TODO from txmempool.cpp (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
This refactor request was added in commit eb306664e7, though it didn't explain why the refactor is needed and what the goal is. Given that this wasn't touched for more than 5 years, it doesn't seem critical. Generally, non-trivial `TODO`s make more sense as GitHub issues, so that they can be discussed and triaged more easily.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK fa32cc0682a0aa3420e6a11031721fcb6c50fa44
Tree-SHA512: 6629fef543e815136c82c38aa8ba2c4de68a5fe94c6954f2559e468f7e59052e02dd7c221d3b159be0314eaf0dbb18f74814297c58f76e2289c47e8d4f49be4e
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`FlushStateToDisk` log is misleading
before
```
FlushStateToDisk: write coins cache to disk (8564 coins, 1199kB) started
FlushStateToDisk: write coins cache to disk (8564 coins, 1199kB) completed (13.98s)
```
after
```
FlushStateToDisk: write coins cache to disk (8564 coins, 1199kB) started
FlushStateToDisk: write coins cache to disk (8564 coins, 1199kB) completed (0.00s)
FlushStateToDisk: write evodb cache to disk started
FlushStateToDisk: write evodb cache to disk completed (13.98s)
```
## What was done?
Make a separate scope and log output for evodb related part. Most of the
changes here are whitespaces, ignoring them reveals the actual changes,
see https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5632/files?w=1.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run a node, check logs
## 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 should be testing from the very first v19 block, not from some random
one 100 blocks after
## What was done?
Implement that, make sure we start at v19 activation.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`make check`
## 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
there is no reason for devnet-only params to exist on regtest
## What was done?
remove them
## 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
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`GetAdjustedTime()` can be manipulated by our peers, we should avoid
using it for our internal data structures/logic.
## What was done?
Use `GetTime<T>()` instead, fix some includes while at it.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, run a node
## 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
The bug was introduced in the original PR #5026 and refactored later
(which is good actually cause we shouldn't mix refactoring and
bug-fixing :) )
## What was done?
fix conditions, add tests
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_asset_locks.py`
## 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
fix: double lock of deterministicMNManager->cs
Logs:
```
node1 2023-10-21T16:46:03.990302Z (mocktime: 2014-12-04T17:33:19Z) [httpworker.1] DOUBLE LOCK DETECTED
node1 2023-10-21T16:46:03.990322Z (mocktime: 2014-12-04T17:33:19Z) [httpworker.1] Lock order:
node1 2023-10-21T16:46:03.990339Z (mocktime: 2014-12-04T17:33:19Z) [httpworker.1] 'cs_main' in miner.cpp:129 (in thread 'httpworker.1')
node1 2023-10-21T16:46:03.990353Z (mocktime: 2014-12-04T17:33:19Z) [httpworker.1] 'm_mempool.cs' in miner.cpp:129 (in thread 'httpworker.1')
node1 2023-10-21T16:46:03.990366Z (mocktime: 2014-12-04T17:33:19Z) [httpworker.1] (*) 'deterministicMNManager->cs' in evo/cbtx.cpp:114 (in thread 'httpworker.1')
node1 2023-10-21T16:46:03.990439Z (mocktime: 2014-12-04T17:33:19Z) [httpworker.1] (*) 'cs' in ./evo/deterministicmns.h:614 (in thread 'httpworker.1')
node1 2023-10-21T16:46:04.003619Z (mocktime: 2014-12-04T17:33:19Z) [httpworker.1] Posix Signal: Aborted
No debug information available for stacktrace. You should add debug information and then run:
dashd -printcrashinfo=bvcgc43iinzgc43ijfxgm3ybaacwiyltnbsbkudponuxqictnftw4ylmhiqecytpoj2gkzaphcbzaaaaaaaaayeurhimekiaaav6ldwqyiuqaafwsoe5bqrjaaahz6eh2dbcsaaakhhzaaaaaaaaanreseaaaaaaacgguliaaaaaaadyauwqaaaaaaacp3daaaaaaaaamxigcaaaaaaablpulyaaaaaaadovy3yaaaaaaahj7vbaaaaaaaadnbsdaaaaaaaaaa======
```
Part of backtrace:
```
#9 UniqueLock<AnnotatedMixin<std::mutex>, std::unique_lock<std::mutex> >::UniqueLock (fTry=false, nLine=615, pszFile=0x55a9f71a3710 "./evo/deterministicmns.h",
pszName=0x55a9f719caff "cs", mutexIn=..., this=0x7f7e1e71b250) at ./sync.h:164
#10 CDeterministicMNManager::GetListForBlock (this=0x55a9f84d06b0, pindex=0x7f7db03621c0) at ./evo/deterministicmns.h:615
#11 0x000055a9f6612258 in llmq::utils::ComputeQuorumMembersByQuarterRotation (pCycleQuorumBaseBlockIndex=0x7f7db03a6930, llmqParams=...) at /usr/include/c++/12/bits/unique_ptr.h:191
#12 llmq::utils::GetAllQuorumMembers (llmqType=<optimized out>, pQuorumBaseBlockIndex=0x7f7db0359bc0, reset_cache=reset_cache@entry=false) at llmq/utils.cpp:150
#13 0x000055a9f694d957 in CDeterministicMNManager::HandleQuorumCommitment (qc=..., pQuorumBaseBlockIndex=<optimized out>, mnList=..., debugLogs=debugLogs@entry=false)
at evo/deterministicmns.cpp:989
#14 0x000055a9f695c455 in CDeterministicMNManager::BuildNewListFromBlock (this=<optimized out>, block=..., pindexPrev=pindexPrev@entry=0x7f7db03c1ac0, state=..., view=...,
mnListRet=..., debugLogs=false) at evo/deterministicmns.cpp:918
#15 0x000055a9f692e7cd in CalcCbTxMerkleRootMNList (block=..., pindexPrev=pindexPrev@entry=0x7f7db03c1ac0, merkleRootRet=..., state=..., view=...)
at /usr/include/c++/12/bits/unique_ptr.h:191
#16 0x000055a9f6a352ed in BlockAssembler::CreateNewBlock (this=this@entry=0x7f7e1e71f0b0, scriptPubKeyIn=...) at ./validation.h:649
#17 0x000055a9f6771c49 in generateBlocks (chainman=..., mempool=..., evodb=..., llmq_ctx=..., coinbase_script=..., nGenerate=10, nMaxTries=<optimized out>) at rpc/mining.cpp:167
#18 0x000055a9f677a496 in generatetoaddress (request=...) at /usr/include/c++/12/bits/unique_ptr.h:191
#19 0x000055a9f671ea02 in CRPCCommand::CRPCCommand(char const*, char const*, UniValue (*)(JSONRPCRequest const&), std::initializer_list<char const*>)::{lambda(JSONRPCRequest const&, UniValue&, bool)#1}::operator()(JSONRPCRequest const&, UniValue&, bool) const (__closure=<optimized out>, result=..., request=...) at ./rpc/server.h:120
```
## What was done?
`CDeterministicMNManager::BuildNewListFromBlock` doesn't require `cs`
lock anymore
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Current implementation relies either on asserts or sometimes checks then
returning a special value; In the case of asserts (or no assert where we
use the value without checks) it'd be better to make it explicit to
function caller that the ptr must be not_null; otherwise gsl::not_null
will call terminate.
See
https://github.com/microsoft/GSL/blob/main/docs/headers.md#user-content-H-pointers-not_null
and
https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines#Rf-nullptr
I'm interested in a conceptual review; specifically on if this is
beneficial over just converting these ptrs to be a reference?
## What was done?
*Partial* implementation on using gsl::not_null in dash code
## How Has This Been Tested?
Building
## 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)_
---------
Signed-off-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
To make configuring devnets more error-prune and config file shorter
## What was done?
Updated default LLMQ parameters on devnet from 50_60, 60_75, 100_67 to
`LLMQ_DEVNET` and `LLMQ_DEVNET_PLATFORM`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
not tested yet; would be tested on devnets later with next
devnet/release
## Breaking Changes
n/a for non-dev-nets; for dev-net other default quorum is used.
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
By default consensus for devnet if 50_60 that is way too much:
```
consensus.llmqTypeMnhf = Consensus::LLMQType::LLMQ_50_60;
```
So, `quorum list` on devnet-ouzo is empty:
```
{
"llmq_50_60": [
],
```
## What was done?
Adds new -llmqmnhf param for devnet to change quorum params dynamically.
## How Has This Been Tested?
<not 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
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
#5597 follow-up
## What was done?
add missing filed description
## How Has This Been Tested?
`help getblockchaininfo`
## 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)_
(over a 13 minute segment of reindex) boost time took about 9+9+9 =
27%!! of total cycles!!!
During the same time segment, GetTimeMicros() used roughly 0.2% of total
cycles! (even though it's used a lot more)
Over my entire roughly 40 minute profiling session, boost time appears
to use about 6% of cycles; still too much, while GetTimeMicros used
about 0.4%
## 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)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Now that v19 is buried we can enforce basic bls scheme usage in
governance and coinjoin and drop some extra code we used for backwards
compatibility.
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, sync and mix on testnet
## 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
It makes more sense for DecreaseScores to be inside of the MNList itself
imo
## What was done?
Refactored as such
## How Has This Been Tested?
Reindexed
I had originally expected some performance improvements due to the
removal of `GetMN` but in my benchmarking I didn't see any noticeable
perf changes. I do still think the removal of `GetMN` and using a
shared_ptr the whole time is better as it removes the chance of the
master node disappearing from the list (which would have previously
thrown, but is now impossible).
## 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)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Implementation EHF mechanism, part 4. Previous changes are:
- https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/4577
- https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5505
- https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5469
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently MN_RR is activated automatically by soft-fork activation after
v20 is activated.
It is not flexible enough, because platform may not be released by that
time yet or in opposite it can be too long to wait.
Also, any signal of EHF requires manual actions from MN owners to sign
EHF signal - it is automated here.
## What was done?
New spork `SPORK_24_MN_RR_READY`; new EHF manager that sign EHF signals
semi-automatically without manual actions; and send transaction with EHF
signal when signal is signed to network.
Updated rpc `getblockchaininfo` to return information about of EHF
activated forks.
Fixed function `IsTxSafeForMining` in chainlock's handler to skip
transactions without inputs (empty `vin`).
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests. Some tests have been updated due to new way
of MN_RR activation: `feature_asset_locks.py`, `feature_mnehf.py`,
`feature_llmq_evo.py` and unit test `block_reward_reallocation_tests`.
## Breaking Changes
New way of MN_RR activation.
## 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>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Calculation of `platformReward` should ignore fees and rely only on
Block subsidy.
cc @QuantumExplorer
## What was done?
From now on, the following formula is applied:
```
blockReward = blockSubsidy + feeReward
masternodeReward = masternodeShare(blockSubsidy)
platformReward = platformShare(masternodeReward)
masternodeReward += masternodeShare(feeReward)
```
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
`plaftormReward` differs in networks where `mn_rr` is already active
## 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
- [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
Currently, the `nSubsidyBase` calculation relies on difficulty. This
leads to variable Block Subsidity.
When Platform will be live, it would constantly require blocks
difficulty in order to calculate the `platformReward` (which relies on
Block Subsidy)
cc @QuantumExplorer
## What was done?
Starting from v20 activation, `nSubsidyBase` will no longer rely on
difficulty and will be constant to 5.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
Block rewards will differ.
## 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
Signature for withdrawal (asset unlock) transaction should be validated
against platform quorum (100_67) but not same as currently against EHF
quorum (400_85).
## What was done?
Updates type of quorum in chainparams for Asset Unlock (withdrawal)
transactions to same as platform's quorum.
It is first part of changes to fix devnet, testnet and mainnet. For
regnet is still used incorrect quorum due to non-trivial changes in
functional test `feature_assetlocks.py`; these changes would be provided
in next PR.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional test.
## Breaking Changes
Yes, quorum for validation of Asset Unlock (withdrawal) transaction is
changed.
## 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
this change saw a ~38% performance improvement in header sync reindex
reproduce via `time ./src/qt/dash-qt --nowallet --testnet --reindex
--stopatheight=5`
On Develop this took average of 1:48 to finish, on this branch it took
1:07
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Slow header / block validation
## What was done?
Pass around cached block hash
## How Has This Been Tested?
Reindexed 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
- [ ] 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: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Since `mn_rr` is already active on Testnet, because of #5588, syncing
from develop is broken.
## What was done?
Temporary disabled changes of #5588 for Testnet.
This should be dropped when Testnet will be re-organised for Platform.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Syncing 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
- [ ] 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
Historical masternode data returned via rpcs like `protx listdiff` can
be broken because some collaterals might be spent already and
`GetUTXOCoin` wasn't able to get any info.
## What was done?
Use `GetTransaction` as a fallback.
## 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
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
avoid potential discrepancies in block reward calculations
## What was done?
use integers (int64_t) only when dealing with block rewards, no
float/double
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests
## Breaking Changes
might fork off on devnets that use previous version
## 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)_
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
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)
strong enums (enum class) cannot be converted implicitly to another
type, requiring you to either use a static_cast or use to_underlying,
which is a part of C++23, which this codebase doesn't support.
the idea of scoping a weak enum into a namespace is courtesy of
https://stackoverflow.com/a/46294875/13845753
includes:
- 2a2182c387f607cd8284f33890bd285a81077b7f
- 77c507358bda9bd6c496f33e0f4418c0603bb08d
completion of partial merge done in dash#4164 as 56f1b2d (blocker
bitcoin#17938 was merged in dash#5246 as 00802bb)
The three object variant was removed in dash#3276 through the backport
of bitcoin#11385, leaving behind the four, five and six variant options.
They aren't used anywhere in the codebase and aren't present in Bitcoin
Core currently, and so, have been removed.
## Motivation
As highlighted in https://github.com/dashpay/dash-issues/issues/52,
decoupling of `CFlatDB`-interacting components from managers of objects
like `CGovernanceManager` and `CSporkManager` is a key task for
achieving deglobalization of Dash-specific components.
The design of `CFlatDB` as a flat database agent relies on hooking into
the object's state its meant to load and store, using its
(de)serialization routines and other miscellaneous functions (notably,
without defining an interface) to achieve those ends. This approach was
taken predominantly for components that want a single-file cache.
Because of the method it uses to hook into the object (templates and the
use of temporary objects), it explicitly prevented passing arguments
into the object constructor, an explicit requirement for storing
references to other components during construction. This, in turn,
created an explicit dependency on those same components being available
in the global context, which would block the backport of bitcoin#21866,
a requirement for future backports meant to achieve parity in
`assumeutxo` support.
The design of these objects made no separation between persistent (i.e.
cached) and ephemeral (i.e. generated/fetched during initialization or
state transitions) data and the design of `CFlatDB` attempts to "clean"
the database by breaching this separation and attempting to access this
ephemeral data.
This might be acceptable if it is contained within the manager itself,
like `CSporkManager`'s `CheckAndRemove()` but is utterly unacceptable
when it relies on other managers (that, as a reminder, are only
accessible through the global state because of restrictions caused by
existing design), like `CGovernanceManager`'s `UpdateCachesAndClean()`.
This pull request aims to separate the `CFlatDB`-interacting portions of
these managers into a struct, with `CFlatDB` interacting only with this
struct, while the manager inherits the struct and manages
load/store/update of the database through the `CFlatDB` instance
initialized within its scope, though the instance only has knowledge of
what is exposed through the limited parent struct.
## Additional information
* As regards to existing behaviour, `CFlatDB` is written entirely as a
header as it relies on templates to specialize itself for the object it
hooks into. Attempting to split the logic and function definitions into
separate files will require you to explicitly define template
specializations, which is tedious.
* `m_db` is defined as a pointer as you cannot instantiate a
forward-declared template (see [this Stack Overflow
answer](https://stackoverflow.com/a/12797282) for more information),
which is done when defined as a member in the object scope.
* The conditional cache flush predicating on RPC _not_ being in the
warm-up state has been replaced with unconditional flushing of the
database on object destruction (@UdjinM6, is this acceptable?)
## TODOs
This is a list of things that aren't within the scope of this pull
request but should be addressed in subsequent pull requests
* [ ] Definition of an interface that `CFlatDB` stores are expected to
implement
* [ ] Lock annotations for all potential uses of members protected by
the `cs` mutex in each manager object and store
* [ ] Additional comments documenting what each function and member does
* [ ] Deglobalization of affected managers
---------
Co-authored-by: Kittywhiskers Van Gogh <63189531+kittywhiskers@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Requested by @QuantumExplorer for platform needs
## What was done?
New rpc `gettransactionsarelocked` that returns list of txes.
it does less heavy calculations and transfer less data by gRPC.
## How Has This Been Tested?
```
$ src/dash-cli gettransactionsarelocked '["e469de7994b9c1da8efd262fee8843efd7bdcab80c700dc1059c98b28f7c5c1b", "0d9fdf00c9568ff9103742b64e6b8287794633072f8824fa2c475f59e71dbace","0d3f48eebead54d640a7fc5692ddfcba619d8b49347d9a7c04586057c02dec9f"]'
[
{
"height": 907801,
"chainlock": true
},
{
"height": 101,
"chainlock": true
},
{
"height": -1,
"chainlock": false
}
]
```
Limiter tested by this call:
```
src/dash-cli gettransactionsarelocked '["", "","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","",""]' | wc
```
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
DashCentral and DMT are both providing incorrect funding thresholds;
output this from core to communicate this more clearly
## What was done?
Added RPC output
## How Has This Been Tested?
Running on main net
## 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
Grabbed this from #5480.
## What was done?
Cleans quorum data from evoDB for old quorums.
## 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)_
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Motivation
CoinJoin's subsystems are initialized by variables and managers that
occupy the global context. The _extent_ to which these subsystems
entrench themselves into the codebase is difficult to assess and moving
them out of the global context forces us to enumerate the subsystems in
the codebase that rely on CoinJoin logic and enumerate the order in
which components are initialized and destroyed.
Keeping this in mind, the scope of this pull request aims to:
* Reduce the amount of CoinJoin-specific entities present in the global
scope
* Make the remaining usage of these entities in the global scope
explicit and easily searchable
## Additional Information
* The initialization of `CCoinJoinClientQueueManager` is dependent on
blocks-only mode being disabled (which can be alternatively interpreted
as enabling the relay of transactions). The same applies to
`CBlockPolicyEstimator`, which `CCoinJoinClientQueueManager` depends.
Therefore, `CCoinJoinClientQueueManager` is only initialized if
transaction relaying is enabled and so is its scheduled maintenance
task. This can be found by looking at `init.cpp`
[here](93f8df1c31/src/init.cpp (L1681-L1683)),
[here](93f8df1c31/src/init.cpp (L2253-L2255))
and
[here](93f8df1c31/src/init.cpp (L2326-L2327)).
For this reason, `CBlockPolicyEstimator` is not a member of `CJContext`
and its usage is fulfilled by passing it as a reference when
initializing the scheduling task.
* `CJClientManager` has not used `CConnman` or `CTxMemPool` as `const`
as existing code that is outside the scope of this PR would cast away
constness, which would be unacceptable. Furthermore, some logical paths
are taken that will grind to a halt if they are stored as `const`.
Examples of such a call chains would be:
* `CJClientManager::DoMaintenance >
CCoinJoinClientManager::DoMaintenance > DoAutomaticDenominating >
CCoinJoinClientSession::DoAutomaticDenominating >
CCoinJoinClientSession::StartNewQueue > CConnman::AddPendingMasternode`
which modifies `CConnman::vPendingMasternodes`, which is non-const
behaviour
* `CJClientManager::DoMaintenance >
CCoinJoinClientManager::DoMaintenance > DoAutomaticDenominating >
CCoinJoin::IsCollateralValid > AcceptToMemoryPool` which adds a
transaction to the memory pool, which is non-const behaviour
* There were cppcheck [linter
failures](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5337#issuecomment-1685084688)
that seemed to be caused by the usage of `Assert` in
`coinjoin/client.h`. This seems to be resolved by backporting
[bitcoin#24714](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24714). (Thanks
@knst!)
* Depends on #5546
---------
Co-authored-by: Kittywhiskers Van Gogh <63189531+kittywhiskers@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Some relatively simple refactoring; inspired by reviewing #5569; adds
some constification and some deglobalization
## What was done?
Partial deglobalization and constification
## How Has This Been Tested?
Building
## 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
The old evodb data wasn't dropped on db migration really.
`Erase(<db_key_prefix>)` does nothing.
## What was done?
Loop through the old data and drop it in batches per db key. Do this
both for nodes that are doing migration for the first time and for nodes
that did migration in the past already.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Running different versions on testnet
```
# reindex with 18.2.2 till block 850000 (pre-v19 block)
$ du -hd1 ~/.dashcore/testnet3/evodb/
276M .dashcore/testnet3/evodb
# continue with develop, migration just finished, keep syncing till current tip, block 901000+
$ du -hd1 ~/.dashcore/testnet3/evodb/
469M .dashcore/testnet3/evodb
# continue with this PR, start at current tip, "migration already done. cleaned old data."
$ du -hd1 ~/.dashcore/testnet3/evodb/
302M .dashcore/testnet3/evodb
```
## 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
Tidy up things a bit, address concerns expressed in
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5565#discussion_r1315258917
## What was done?
Implemented changes to make sure `mapObjects` is protected
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run tests, run local node
## 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
Some headers or modules are used objects from STL without including it
directly, it cause compilation failures on some platforms for some
specific compilers such as #5554
## What was done?
Added missing includes and removed obsolete includes for `optional`,
`deque`, `tuple`, `unordered_set`, `unordered_map`, `set` and `atomic`.
Please, note, that this PR doesn't cover all cases, only cases when it
is obviously missing or obviously obsolete.
Also most of changes belongs to to dash specific code; but for cases of
original bitcoin code I keep it untouched, such as missing <map> in
`src/psbt.h`
I used this script to get a list of files/headers which looks suspicious
`./headers-scanner.sh std::optional optional`:
```bash
#!/bin/bash
set -e
function check_includes() {
obj=$1
header=$2
file=$3
used=0
included=0
grep "$obj" "$file" >/dev/null 2>/dev/null && used=1
grep "include <$header>" $file >/dev/null 2>/dev/null && included=1
if [ $used == 1 ] && [ $included == 0 ]
then echo "missing <$header> in $file"
fi
if [ $used == 0 ] && [ $included == 1 ]
then echo "obsolete <$header> in $file"
fi
}
export -f check_includes
obj=$1
header=$2
find src \( -name '*.h' -or -name '*.cpp' -or -name '*.hpp' \) -exec bash -c 'check_includes "$0" "$1" "$2"' "$obj" "$header" {} \;
```
## How Has This Been Tested?
Built code 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
Move funds from the coinbase, into the Asset Lock Pool. This is to incentivize MNs to upgrade to platform, because only MNs running platform will get these migrated rewards
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Set start time of signaling for v29 and mn_rr for Testnet at Friday,
September 1, 2023 0:00:00
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## 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
#5564 is a bit too optimistic about incoming triggers
## What was done?
Rework governance logic to only approve triggers that match our
expectations i.e. have the same data hash as our own trigger would have
if we would have to submit it.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run tests
## Breaking Changes
Voting is done in `CreateGovernanceTrigger` only now meaning that it
only happens on next block for incoming triggers. Tweaked tests
accordingly.
## 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
Let GUI users control all CJ params (on the fly) without the need to
edit `dash.conf`.
<img width="643" alt="Screenshot 2023-08-27 at 12 29 07"
src="https://github.com/dashpay/dash/assets/1935069/2d90db0d-c7b2-43a9-9f7f-1c4ad9517408">
## What was done?
Add 3 corresponding spin boxes in Options (with a simple sanity check).
I tried my best to come up with the least confusing labels/tooltips for
these, not sure if I'm 100% happy with the result though.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run qt wallet, play with values and make sure they are saved/loaded/used
in mixing correctly.
## 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: Konstantin Akimov <knstqq@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
In case MNs didn't submit their own trigger, should vote for funding yes
when receiving triggers from other nodes.
## What was done?
Check if already submitted theirs and vote accordingly.
## 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)_
## What was done?
- remove dependency of Asset Lock txes on CCreditPool
- new case for functional tests of Asset Locks - more than one output
for Asset Lock tx.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests
## Breaking Changes
Slightly changes behaviour of TxMempool. Tx can be accepted in mempool
even if Asset Unlock transaction with same index is already mined. But
final consensus rules are same.
## 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
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Since #5525, MNs during the maturity window, will propose new triggers.
In `CGovernanceManager::CreateSuperblockCandidate`, SuperBlock creation
is skipped when the bellow check is true:
`if (nHeight % Params().GetConsensus().nSuperblockCycle <
Params().GetConsensus().nSuperblockCycle -
Params().GetConsensus().nSuperblockMaturityWindow) return std::nullopt;
`
Hence, the value of `nSuperblockMaturityWindow` must be less than
`nSuperblockCycle` and greater than 0.
## What was done?
Changed `nSuperblockMaturityWindow` for devnet and Testnet chain
parameters to the following values:
`nSuperblockCycle` = 24
`nSuperblockMaturityWindow` = 8
## 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
With #5525 , MNs shouldn't use Sentinel anymore.
## What was done?
In order to force them to remove Sentinel:
- `gobject submit` RPC won't accept triggers anymore.
- `gobject vote-conf` RPC isn't available anymore.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_governance.py` and `feature_governance_object.py`
## Breaking Changes
Normally, only Sentinel should be broken.
## 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
- [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>
a1d5b12ec07d2f7aa9fa955a6dd99e8a2be5cb25 Merge getreceivedby tally into GetReceived function (Andrew Toth)
Pull request description:
This PR merges the tally code of `getreceivedbyaddress` and `getreceivedbylabel` into a single function `GetReceived`. This reduces repeated code and makes it similar to `listreceivedbyaddress` and `listreceivedbylabel`, which use the function `ListReceived`. It will also make the change in #14707 simpler and easier to review.
ACKs for top commit:
theStack:
re-ACK a1d5b12ec0
meshcollider:
utACK a1d5b12ec07d2f7aa9fa955a6dd99e8a2be5cb25
Tree-SHA512: 43d9cd92f7c2c6a8b9c7509aa85a9b9233a6cfec1c43a9062e3bdfb83515413d1feafa8938c828351278ba22bd31c47e62ab5341e4bddc2493103b094d73b047
6f8b498d186df5aa08dbb9ca8fdeab6652f1db5e fuzz: http_request workaround for libevent < 2.1.1 (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
The fuzz test `http_request` calls the following two internal libevent functions:
* `evhttp_parse_firstline_`
* `evhttp_parse_headers_`
Before libevent 2.1.1 however, internal functions names didn't end with an underscore (see libevent commit 8ac3c4c25b and [Changelog for 2.1.1.-alpha](https://github.com/libevent/libevent/blob/master/ChangeLog#L1830) when the change was first mentioned) hence the build fails with a linking error.
This PR adds a preprocessor workaround to the test that checks for the libevent version (via ~`_EVENT_NUMERIC_VERSION`~ `LIBEVENT_VERSION_NUMBER`) and creates wrapper functions mapping to naming scheme without underscore in case the version is older than 2.1.1.
Tested with Ubuntu Xenial 16.04.6 LTS and clang-8.
ACKs for top commit:
hebasto:
ACK 6f8b498d186df5aa08dbb9ca8fdeab6652f1db5e, tested on xenial:
Tree-SHA512: 3b9e0147b8aea22e417d418e3b6d4905f5be131c2b0ae4b0f8b9411c5606d2e22f1b23e1ecc6980ecab907c61404de09e588aae1ac43cf70cf9e8d006bbdee73
fa4632c41714dfaa699bacc6a947d72668a4deef test: Move boost/stdlib includes last (MarcoFalke)
fa488f131fd4f5bab0d01376c5a5013306f1abcd scripted-diff: Bump copyright headers (MarcoFalke)
fac5c373006a9e4bcbb56843bb85f1aca4d87599 scripted-diff: Sort test includes (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
When writing tests, often includes need to be added or removed. Currently the list of includes is not sorted, so developers that write tests and have `clang-format` installed will either have an unrelated change (sorting) included in their commit or they will have to manually undo the sort.
This pull preempts both issues by just sorting all includes in one commit.
Please be aware that this is **NOT** a change to policy to enforce clang-format or any other developer guideline or process. Developers are free to use whatever tool they want, see also #18651.
Edit: Also includes a commit to bump the copyright headers, so that the touched files don't need to be touched again for that.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK fa4632c41714dfaa699bacc6a947d72668a4deef
jonatack:
ACK fa4632c41714dfaa, light review and sanity checks with gcc build and clang fuzz build
Tree-SHA512: 130a8d073a379ba556b1e64104d37c46b671425c0aef0ed725fd60156a95e8dc83fb6f0b5330b2f8152cf5daaf3983b4aca5e75812598f2626c39fd12b88b180
01a3392b1b778fa4fcf568013326d6ea1de4fb3b Drop bitcoin-wallet dependency on libevent (Russell Yanofsky)
0660119ac372c2863d14060ac1bc9bc243771f94 Drop unintended bitcoin-tx dependency on libevent (Russell Yanofsky)
Pull request description:
This fixes compile errors trying to build bitcoin-tx and bitcoin-wallet without libevent, which were reported by Luke Dashjr in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18465
The fix avoiding `bitcoin-tx` dependency on libevent just adds a conditional build rule. This is implemented in the first commit (more details in commit description).
The fix avoiding `bitcoin-wallet` dependency on libevent requires minor code changes, because `bitcoin-wallet` (unlike `bitcoin-tx`) links against code that calls `urlDecode` / `evhttp_uridecode`. This fix is implemented in the second commit (again details in the commit description).
ACKs for top commit:
jonasschnelli:
utACK 01a3392b1b778fa4fcf568013326d6ea1de4fb3b.
Tree-SHA512: d2245e912ab494cccceeb427a1eca8e55b01a0006ff93eebcfb5461ae7cecd1083ac2de443d9db036b18bdc6f0fb615546caaa20c585046f66d234937f74870a
ef712298c3f8bc2afdad783f05080443b72b3f77 util: Check for file being NULL in DirectoryCommit (Luke Dashjr)
457490403853321d308c6ca6aaa90d6f8f29b4cf Fix possible data race when committing block files (Evan Klitzke)
220bb16cbee5b91d0bc0fcc6c71560d631295fa5 util: Introduce DirectoryCommit commit function to sync a directory (Evan Klitzke)
ce5cbaea63ad4ea78e533bdb14f47f414061ae7f util.h: Document FileCommit function (Evan Klitzke)
844d650eea3bd809884cc5dd996a388bdc58314e util: Prefer Mac-specific F_FULLSYNC over fdatasync in FileCommit (Evan Klitzke)
f6cec0bcaf560fa310853ad3fe17022602b63d5f util: Refactor FileCommit from an #if sequence nested in #else, to a sequence of #elif (Evan Klitzke)
Pull request description:
Reviving #12696
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK ef712298c3f8bc2afdad783f05080443b72b3f77
Tree-SHA512: 07d650990ef4c18d645dee3f9a199a940683ad17557d79d93979a76c4e710d8d70e6eae01d1a5991494a24a7654eb7db868be0c34a31e70b2509945d95bc9cce
31b136e5802e1b1e5f9a9589736afe0652f34da2 Don't declare de facto const reference variables as non-const (practicalswift)
1c65c075ee4c7f98d9c1fac5ed7576b96374d4e9 Don't declare de facto const member functions as non-const (practicalswift)
Pull request description:
_Meta: This is the second and final part of the `const` refactoring series (part one: #20581). **I promise: no more refactoring PRs from me in a while! :)** I'll now go back to focusing on fuzzing/hardening!_
Changes in this PR:
* Don't declare de facto const member functions as non-const
* Don't declare de facto const reference variables as non-const
Awards for finding candidates for the above changes go to:
* `clang-tidy`'s [`readability-make-member-function-const`](https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/readability-make-member-function-const.html) check ([list of `clang-tidy` checks](https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/list.html))
* `cppcheck`'s `constVariable` check ([list of `cppcheck` checks](https://sourceforge.net/p/cppcheck/wiki/ListOfChecks/))
See #18920 for instructions on how to analyse Bitcoin Core using Clang Static Analysis, `clang-tidy` and `cppcheck`.
ACKs for top commit:
ajtowns:
ACK 31b136e5802e1b1e5f9a9589736afe0652f34da2
jonatack:
ACK 31b136e5802e1b1e5f9a9589736afe0652f34da2
theStack:
ACK 31b136e5802e1b1e5f9a9589736afe0652f34da2 ❄️
Tree-SHA512: f58f8f00744219426874379e9f3e9331132b9b48e954d24f3a85cbb858fdcc98009ed42ef7e7b4619ae8af9fc240a6d8bfc1c438db2e97b0ecd722a80dcfeffe
faec0638872798b58b9882ee079014555bc8393e log: Use Join() helper when listing log categories (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
This removes the global `ListLogCategories` and replaces it with a one-line member function `LogCategoriesString`, which just calls `Join`.
Should be a straightforward refactor to get rid of a few LOC.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK faec0638872798b58b9882ee079014555bc8393e
promag:
ACK faec0638872798b58b9882ee079014555bc8393e, I also think it's fine as it is (re https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18669#discussion_r412944724).
Tree-SHA512: 2f51f9ce1246eda5630015f3a869e36953c7eb34f311baad576b92d7829e4e88051c6189436271cd0a13732a49698506345b446b98fd28e58edfb5b62169f1c9
378aedc45248cea82d9a3e6dc1038d6828008a76 [net] Add cs_vSend lock annotations (John Newbery)
673254515a2f97e53dd8c7335c836b083ba7e31a [net] Move RecordBytesSent() call out of cs_vSend lock (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
RecordBytesSent() does not require cs_vSend to be locked, so reduce the scope of cs_vSend.
Also correctly annotate the CNode data members that are guarded by cs_vSend.
This is a simpler alternative to #19673.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
ok, reverting to commit 378aedc which has two ACKs already. Any style issues can be fixed up in future PRs.
troygiorshev:
ACK 378aedc45248cea82d9a3e6dc1038d6828008a76
theStack:
re-ACK 378aedc45248cea82d9a3e6dc1038d6828008a76
MarcoFalke:
review ACK 378aedc45248cea82d9a3e6dc1038d6828008a76 🔌
Tree-SHA512: e9cd6c472b7e1479120c1bf2d1c640cf6d18c7d589a5f9b7dfc4875e5790adaab403a7a1b945a47e79e7249a614b8583270e4549f89b22e8a9edb2e4818b0d07
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
When building with `-Wreorder-ctor` capture, the build fails with
`error: field 'lastMNListForVotingKeys' will be initialized after field
'votedFundingYesTriggerHash'`
## What was done?
Moved down `votedFundingYesTriggerHash` to last position in
`CGovernanceManager`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## 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
- [ ] 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 issue https://github.com/dashpay/dash-issues/issues/43
## What was done?
Masternode will try to create, sign and submit a Superblock (GovTrigger)
during the `nSuperblockMaturityWindow`.
## 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
- [ ] 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>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
0000a0c7e9e4e7c1afafe6ef75b7624f4c573190 Remove confusing and almost useless "unexpected version" warning (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
It is useless because it isn't displayed for most users:
* It isn't displayed in normal operation (because the validation debug category is disabled by default)
* It isn't displayed for users that sync up their nodes intermittently, e.g. once a day or once a week (because it is disabled for IBD)
* It is only displayed in the debug log (as opposed to the versionbits warning, which is displayed more prominently)
It is confusing because it doesn't have a use case:
Despite the above, if a user *did* see the warning, it would most likely be a false positive (like it has been in the past). Even if it wasn't, there is nothing they can do about it. The only thing they could do is to check for updates and hope that a fixed version is available. But why would the user be so scrupulously precise in enabling the warning and reading the log, but then fail to regularly check update channels for updated software?
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK 0000a0c7e9e4e7c1afafe6ef75b7624f4c573190
decryp2kanon:
ACK 0000a0c
LarryRuane:
ACK 0000a0c7e9e4e7c1afafe6ef75b7624f4c573190
Tree-SHA512: 16e069c84be6ab6034baeefdc515d0e5cdf560b2005d2faec5f989d45494bd16cfcb4ffca6a17211d9556ae44f9737a60a476c08b5c2bb5e1bd29724ecd6d5c1
e5faec65bd06a3b14175aca3040290f343bd6e9c doc: Fix doxygen comment silent merge conflict in descriptor.cpp (W. J. van der Laan)
Pull request description:
It looks like #21238 introduced a silent merge conflict in the documentation, which fails with `-Wdocumentation` in the CI.
(please merge only if CI passes)
ACKs for top commit:
ajtowns:
ACK e5faec65bd06a3b14175aca3040290f343bd6e9c -- fixed it for me
meshcollider:
ACK e5faec65bd06a3b14175aca3040290f343bd6e9c modulo CI
Tree-SHA512: b07d50fd12aa7c239a92aad8ef29f4e88583c3ce701ebedba7c426aac4981c79113adc4670b7d055ab9535a28bdc3f9a30e6ca1b1ed0d7b9a333a3d9c4b40d8a
4eca20d6f7d850492d331d89d1cdd77abb3c70c1 [doc] correct comment about ATMPW (glozow)
8fa74aeb5b96419c7d40b40f8e1e1269509278e2 [doc] correct comment in chainparams (glozow)
2f8272c2a4b6fa84c04dfeb4d751bb218f2d4c78 [doc] GetBestBlock() doesn't do nothing (gzhao408)
Pull request description:
Came across a few misleading comments, wanted to fix them
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
ACK 4eca20d6f7
MarcoFalke:
ACK 4eca20d6f7d850492d331d89d1cdd77abb3c70c1
laanwj:
Code review ACK 4eca20d6f7d850492d331d89d1cdd77abb3c70c1
Tree-SHA512: 5bef1f1e7703f304128cf0eb8945e139e031580c99062bbbe15bf4db8443c2ba5a8c65844833132e6646c8980c678fc1d2ab0c63e17105585d583570ee350fd0
ebde946a527e50630df180c6565ea5bf8d2ab5aa [doc] Improve comment about protected peers (Amiti Uttarwar)
Pull request description:
The comment currently suggests a long-standing node would infrequently protect peers under normal circumstances. Clarify that we also protect peers that are synced to the same work as our chain tip. [Relevant check here](ee0dc02c6f/src/net_processing.cpp (L1997)).
ACKs for top commit:
Empact:
ACK ebde946a52
jnewbery:
ACK ebde946a527e50630df180c6565ea5bf8d2ab5aa
Tree-SHA512: 3692f4098e95f935d801e0ee6bbd3a7c9480e66ca070a7c68ba79c4fc2e62377f5d37080c7b6a7d15ab617aaf4d3df9b26abc4f1b090d572ba46fdd092a6a64a
6f2c4fd0775a9c45eacc4bab8f138528852fdf44 netinfo: add user help documentation (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
This is the help doc commit of #20764 without the rest of the PR or anything new since the 0.21.0 branch-off in order to target giving users a -netinfo help doc for 0.21.
- to test the new help
```
$ ./src/bitcoin-cli -netinfo help
```
- to see the updated short help
```
$ ./src/bitcoin-cli -help | grep -A4 netinfo
```
<details><summary><code>-netinfo</code> help doc</summary><p>
```
$ ./src/bitcoin-cli -netinfo help
-netinfo level "help"
Returns a network peer connections dashboard with information from the remote server.
Under the hood, -netinfo fetches the data by calling getpeerinfo and getnetworkinfo.
An optional integer argument from 0 to 4 can be passed for different peers listings.
Pass "help" to see this detailed help documentation.
If more than one argument is passed, only the first one is read and parsed.
Suggestion: use with the Linux watch(1) command for a live dashboard; see example below.
Arguments:
1. level (integer 0-4, optional) Specify the info level of the peers dashboard (default 0):
0 - Connection counts and local addresses
1 - Like 0 but with a peers listing (without address or version columns)
2 - Like 1 but with an address column
3 - Like 1 but with a version column
4 - Like 1 but with both address and version columns
2. help (string "help", optional) Print this help documentation instead of the dashboard.
Result:
* The peers listing in levels 1-4 displays all of the peers sorted by direction and minimum ping time:
Column Description
------ -----------
<-> Direction
"in" - inbound connections are those initiated by the peer
"out" - outbound connections are those initiated by us
type Type of peer connection
"full" - full relay, the default
"block" - block relay; like full relay but does not relay transactions or addresses
net Network the peer connected through ("ipv4", "ipv6", "onion", "i2p", or "cjdns")
mping Minimum observed ping time, in milliseconds (ms)
ping Last observed ping time, in milliseconds (ms)
send Time since last message sent to the peer, in seconds
recv Time since last message received from the peer, in seconds
txn Time since last novel transaction received from the peer and accepted into our mempool, in minutes
blk Time since last novel block passing initial validity checks received from the peer, in minutes
age Duration of connection to the peer, in minutes
asmap Mapped AS (Autonomous System) number in the BGP route to the peer, used for diversifying
peer selection (only displayed if the -asmap config option is set)
id Peer index, in increasing order of peer connections since node startup
address IP address and port of the peer
version Peer version and subversion concatenated, e.g. "70016/Satoshi:21.0.0/"
* The connection counts table displays the number of peers by direction, network, and the totals
for each, as well as a column for block relay peers.
* The local addresses table lists each local address broadcast by the node, the port, and the score.
Examples:
Connection counts and local addresses only
> bitcoin-cli -netinfo
Compact peers listing
> bitcoin-cli -netinfo 1
Full dashboard
> bitcoin-cli -netinfo 4
Full live dashboard, adjust --interval or --no-title as needed (Linux)
> watch --interval 1 --no-title ./src/bitcoin-cli -netinfo 4
See this help
> bitcoin-cli -netinfo help
```
</p></details>
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK 6f2c4fd0775a9c45eacc4bab8f138528852fdf44
Tree-SHA512: dd49b1ce65546dacfb8ba9f9d57de0eae55560fd05533cf26c0b5d6ec65bf1de789c3287e90a0e2f47707532fab2fe62919a4192a7ffd58ac8eec18293e9aaeb
e6fe1c37d0a2f8037996dd80619d6c23ec028729 rpc: Improve avoidpartialspends and avoid_reuse documentation (Fabian Jahr)
8f073076b102b77897e5a025ae555baae3d1f671 wallet: Increase OUTPUT_GROUP_MAX_ENTRIES to 100 (Fabian Jahr)
Pull request description:
Follow-up to #17824.
This increases OUTPUT_GROUP_MAX_ENTRIES to 100 which means that OutputGroups will now be up to 100 outputs large, up from previously 10. The main motivation for this change is that during the PR review club on #17824 [several participants signaled](https://bitcoincore.reviews/17824.html#l-339) that 100 might be a better value here.
I think fees should be manageable for users but more importantly, users should know what they can expect when using the wallet with this configuration, so I also tried to clarify the documentation on `-avoidpartialspends` and `avoid_reuse` a bit. If there are other additional ways how or docs where users can be made aware of the potential consequences of using these parameters, please let me know. Another small upside is that [there seem to be a high number of batching transactions with 100 and 200 inputs](https://miro.medium.com/max/3628/1*sZ5eaBSbsJsHx-J9iztq2g.png)([source](https://medium.com/@hasufly/an-analysis-of-batching-in-bitcoin-9bdf81a394e0)) giving these transactions a bit of a larger anonymity set, although that is probably a very weak argument.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
ACK e6fe1c37d0
Xekyo:
retACK e6fe1c37d0a2f8037996dd80619d6c23ec028729
rajarshimaitra:
tACK `e6fe1c3`
achow101:
ACK e6fe1c37d0a2f8037996dd80619d6c23ec028729
glozow:
code review ACK e6fe1c37d0
Tree-SHA512: 79685c58bafa64ed8303b0ecd616fce50fc9a2b758aa79833e4ad9f15760e09ab60c007bc16ab4cbc4222e644cfd154f1fa494b0f3a5d86faede7af33a6f2826
3d552b0d788a7d3102396b32d0de08e57cbfd297 [doc] explain why CheckBlock() is called before AcceptBlock() (Sjors Provoost)
Pull request description:
Based on https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-February/016697.html and its PDF attachment.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
cr ACK 3d552b0d788a7d3102396b32d0de08e57cbfd297
Tree-SHA512: d1ef39855317853e0e7e051ec6015054d0d227fcdf20281c2c1921056537f1f79044aa1bdd35f46475edd17596fbcae79aeb338c4865b1269a01b158f6cb2ac4
8c09c0c1d18885ef94f79b3f2d073f43269bc95d fuzz: Avoid time-based "non-determinism" in fuzzing harnesses by using mocked GetTime() (practicalswift)
Pull request description:
Avoid time-based "non-determinism" in fuzzing harnesses by using mocked `GetTime()`.
Prior to this commit the fuzzing harnesses `banman`, `connman`, `net` and `rbf` had time-based "non-determinism". `addrman` is fixed in #20425. `process_message` and `process_messages` are left to fix: simply using mock time is not enough for them due to interaction with `IsInitialBlockDownload()`.
See [`doc/fuzzing.md`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/fuzzing.md) for information on how to fuzz Bitcoin Core. Don't forget to contribute any coverage increasing inputs you find to the [Bitcoin Core fuzzing corpus repo](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/qa-assets).
Happy fuzzing :)
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
review ACK 8c09c0c1d18885ef94f79b3f2d073f43269bc95d
practicalswift:
> review ACK [8c09c0c](8c09c0c1d1)
Tree-SHA512: 32dfbead3dfd18cf4ff56dc2ea341aa977441b4e19a54879cf54fa5820c7e2b14b92c7e238d32fd785654f3b28cc82826ae66c03e94c292633c63c41196ba9a8
fabce459bb44e90dc7ae9c44eeedab707435af5b fuzz: version handshake (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Not fuzzing the version handshake will limit fuzz coverage
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
cr ACK fabce459bb44e90dc7ae9c44eeedab707435af5b: patch looks very much correct
Tree-SHA512: 4091d27d39edee781d033e471b352084bb54df250d0890e4821a325926a44dff9b26a2614d67dd0529f73bd366b075d7a0a1a570c2837de286a1b93a59a8fb91
ba7e17e073f833eccd4c7c111ae9058c3f123371 rpc, test: document {previous,next}blockhash as optional (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This PR updates the result help of the following RPCs w.r.t. the `previousblockhash` and `nextblockhash` fields:
- getblockheader
- getblock
Also adds trivial tests on genesis block (should not contain "previousblockhash") and best block (should not contain "nextblockhash").
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: ef42c5c773fc436e1b4a67be14e2532e800e1e30e45e54a57431c6abb714d2c069c70d40ea4012d549293b823a1973b3f569484b3273679683b28ed40abf46bb
5e531e6beb5381c0be5efaa24b7e423e593568e4 assumptions: check C++17 assumption with MSVC (fanquake)
c7b46489f8c4d880382248fb47266d81948bbce0 assumptions: assume a C++17 compiler (fanquake)
Pull request description:
This has been the case since #20413.
This should also enable the check for MSVC. From my reading of https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/reference/zc-cplusplus?view=msvc-160 and https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/msvc-now-correctly-reports-__cplusplus/ if we set the `/Zc:__cplusplus` switch in additional options, MSVC will report the correct value for `__cplusplus`. However I have not tested this.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK 5e531e6beb5381c0be5efaa24b7e423e593568e4
hebasto:
ACK 5e531e6beb5381c0be5efaa24b7e423e593568e4, checked the MS docs, and AppVeyor build is green.
practicalswift:
ACK 5e531e6beb5381c0be5efaa24b7e423e593568e4
Tree-SHA512: a4fb525cf5c33abc944c614edb0313a39c8a39a1637a03c09342c15ba0925f4eb037062e65e51b42ade667506b7e554c7159acf86e6b8c35d0a87dd79a6f239b
ae98aec9c0521cdcec76459c8200bd45ff6a1485 refactor: Make CAddrMan::cs non-recursive (Hennadii Stepanov)
f5d1c7fac70f424114dae3be270fdc31589a8c34 Add AssertLockHeld to CAddrMan private functions (Hennadii Stepanov)
5ef1d0b6982f05f70ff2164ab9af1ac1d2f97f5d Add thread safety annotations to CAddrMan public functions (Hennadii Stepanov)
b138973a8b4bbe061ad97011f278a21e08ea79e6 refactor: Avoid recursive locking in CAddrMan::Clear (Hennadii Stepanov)
f79a664314b88941c1a2796623e846d0a5916c06 refactor: Apply consistent pattern for CAddrMan::Check usage (Hennadii Stepanov)
187b7d2bb36e6de9cd960378021ebe690619a2ef refactor: Avoid recursive locking in CAddrMan::Check (Hennadii Stepanov)
f77d9c79aa41dab4285e95c9432cc6d853be67a3 refactor: Fix CAddrMan::Check style (Hennadii Stepanov)
06703973c758c2c5d0ff916993aa7055f609d2d7 Make CAddrMan::Check private (Hennadii Stepanov)
efc6fac951e75ba913350bb470c3d4e6a4e284b9 refactor: Avoid recursive locking in CAddrMan::size (Hennadii Stepanov)
2da95545ea42f925dbc7703e42e9356908a8c83e test: Drop excessive locking in CAddrManTest::SimConnFail (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
This PR replaces `RecursiveMutex CAddrMan::cs` with `Mutex CAddrMan::cs`.
All of the related code branches are covered by appropriate lock assertions to insure that the mutex locking policy has not been changed by accident.
Related to #19303.
Based on #22025, and first three commits belong to it.
ACKs for top commit:
vasild:
ACK ae98aec9c0521cdcec76459c8200bd45ff6a1485
Tree-SHA512: c3a2d3d955a75befd7e497a802b8c10730e393be9111ca263ad0464d32fae6c7edf9bd173ffb6bc9bb61c4b39073a74eba12979d47f26b0b7b4a861d100942df
3e68efa615968e0c9d68a7f197c7852478f6be78 [net] Move checks from GetLocalAddrForPeer to caller (John Newbery)
d21d2b264cd77c027a06f68289cf4c3f177d1ed0 [net] Change AdvertiseLocal to GetLocalAddrForPeer (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
This is the first part of #21186. It slightly disentangles addr handling in net/net_processing by making it explicit that net_processing is responsible for pushing addr records into `vAddrToSend`.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
re-ACK 3e68efa615968e0c9d68a7f197c7852478f6be78 🍅
Tree-SHA512: 9af50c41f5a977e2e277f24a589db38e2980b353401def5e74b108ac5f493d9b5d6b1b8bf15323a4d66321495f04bc271450fcef7aa7d1c095f051a4f8e9b15f
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Unlike bitcoin we are using PREVIOUS block in `GetBlockSubsidy()`.
That creates special case for genesis block, because it doesn't have
previous block. In this special case instead of calling
`GetBlockSubsidy` should be used pre-calculated value. To avoid
confusion for new code and simplify implementation, there's introduced a
new method `GetBlockSubsidyPrev` that has other interface: it takes
pointer `CBlockIndex* prev` in agruments instead pair of height + nbits.
These changes are follow-up for #5501
## What was done?
Implemented new method `GetBlockSubsidyPrev()` and used instead of
`GetBlockSubsidy` when it is more convenient.
## 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
- [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
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
fix buid errors like https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/jobs/4933232262
## What was done?
reorder initializations
## How Has This Been Tested?
local build with `-werror`
## 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)_
a9ecbdfcaa15499644d16e9c8ad2c63dfc45b37b test: add more inactive filter tests to p2p_filter.py (Sebastian Falbesoner)
5eae034996b340c19cebab9efb6c89d20fe051ef net: limit BIP37 filter lifespan (active between 'filterload' and 'filterclear') (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This PR fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18483. On the master branch, there is currently _always_ a BIP37 filter set for every peer: if not a specific filter is set through a `filterload` message, a default match-everything filter is instanciated and pointed to via the `CBloomFilter` default constructor; that happens both initially, when the containing structure `TxRelay` is constructed:
c0b389b335/src/net.h (L812)
and after a loaded filter is removed again through a `filterclear` message:
c0b389b335/src/net_processing.cpp (L3201)
The behaviour was introduced by commit 37c6389c5a (an intentional covert fix for [CVE-2013-5700](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18515), according to gmaxwell).
This default match-everything filter leads to some unintended side-effects:
1. `getdata` request for filtered blocks (i.e. type `MSG_FILTERED_BLOCK`) are always responded to with `merkleblock`s, even if no filter was set by the peer, see issue #18483 (strictly speaking, this is a violation of BIP37) c0b389b335/src/net_processing.cpp (L1504-L1507)
2. if a peer sends a `filteradd` message without having loaded a filter via `filterload` before, the intended increasing of the banscore never happens (triggered if `bad` is set to true, a few lines below) c0b389b335/src/net_processing.cpp (L3182-L3186)
This PR basically activates the `else`-branch code paths for all checks of `pfilter` again (on the master branch, they are dead code) by limiting the pointer's lifespan: instead of always having a filter set, the `pfilter` is only pointing to a `CBloomFilter`-instance after receiving a `filterload` message and the instance is destroyed again (and the pointer nullified) after receiving a `filterclear` message.
Here is a before/after comparison in behaviour:
| code part / scenario | master branch | PR branch |
| --------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------- |
| `getdata` processing for `MSG_FILTERED_BLOCK` | always responds with `merkleblock` | only responds if filter was set via `filterload` |
| `filteradd` processing, no filter was loaded | nothing | peer's banscore increases by 100 (i.e. disconnect) |
On the other code parts where `pfilter` is checked there is no change in the logic behaviour (except that `CBloomFilter::IsRelevantAndUpdate()` is unnecessarily called and immediately returned in the master branch).
Note that the default constructor of `CBloomFilter` is only used for deserializing the received `filterload` message and nowhere else. The PR also contains a functional test checking that sending `getdata` for filtered blocks is ignored by the node if no bloom filter is set.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
re-ACK a9ecbdfcaa, only change is in test code 🕙
Tree-SHA512: 1a656a6d74ccaf628e7fdca063ba63fbab2089e0b6d0a11be9bbd387c2ee6d3230706ff8ffc1a55711481df3d4547137dd7c9d9184d89eaa43ade4927792d0b6
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
The order of members in a class/struct definition and the order of their
initialization should match. This ensures that the code is more
error-proof in cases where the order of member initializations is
important, as they may depend on each other.
Instead manual checking of member initialization better let CI handle
it.
Last PR where it's noticed:
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5531#discussion_r1299404387
## What was done?
New flag "-Werror=reorder" for `configure.ac` and fixes existing code.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Build code with `--enable-werror`
## 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
Should make debugging CoinJoin in multi-wallet use cases a bit easier
## What was done?
Borrowed the idea from `WalletLogPrintf`
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run local node, looks like this (for a wallet named `mixing`)
```
2023-08-08T15:11:06Z [mixing] CCoinJoinClientManager::CheckAutomaticBackup -- Keys left since latest backup: 882
```
etc.
## 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
We only lock them on node load atm.
Fixes#5535
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
close and open a wallet with a mn collateral
## 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
`-1` will only mean `not initialized` from now
Should fix crashes like
https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/jobs/4893359925
This fix applied on top of #5525https://gitlab.com/UdjinM6/dash/-/pipelines/972154075
## What was done?
Introduce and use `m_initial_snapshot_index` instead of re-using
`nHeight`. Added a couple of asserts to make sure:
1. we never create mn lists with `nHeight` set to `-1` _explicitly_ (but
it's ok for ctor with no params to do so)
2. we never set `nHeight` to `-1` for an existing mn list
3. we never try to get a height for a non-initialized list
4. `GetListForBlockInternal` never returns non-initialized mn lists
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run tests, run regtest/testnet wallets.
## Breaking Changes
We never stored snapshots with `nHeight == -1`, should be no breaking
changes I think.
## 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)_
By design we can have more and more and more gaps in indexes list so far as
we can not re-sign expired transaction of asset-unlock. CRangesList is protected from this situation
This data structure provide efficient storage for numbers if amount of gaps between them is not too big
It works similarly to CSkipSet but amount of gaps now in unlimited
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Renaming of all classes/variables/functions/rpcs from `hpmn` to `evo`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
All unit and func tests are passing.
Sync of Testnet.
## Breaking Changes
All protx RPCs ending with `_hpmn` were converted to `_evo`.
`_hpmn` RPCs are now deprecated.
Although, they can still be enabled by adding `-deprecatedrpc=hpmn`.
## 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
- [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: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`JoinExistingQueue` was tweaked for regtest/devnets in #4394 but we have
"skipping winners" logic in `StartNewQueue` too. We should also use
weighted count when checking "skip winners" conditions.
## What was done?
Add a helper to calculate the number and use it in both methods. Adjust
logic.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Running a local mixing node on devnet ~- no "skipping winners" in logs
anymore.~ and testnet
## 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
Execute command when the best chainlock changes (`%s` in cmd is replaced
by chainlocked block hash). Same as `-blocknotify` but for chainlocks.
Let `-instantsendnotify` replace `%w` with wallet name like
`-walletnotify` does.
## What was done?
## 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
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
fa2630328687645fbc7dd1ea46aac32514025715 fuzz: Check that NULL_DATA is unspendable (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
* Every script of type NULL_DATA must be unspendable
* The only know types of unspendable scripts are NULL_DATA and certain NONSTANDARD scripts
ACKs for top commit:
sipa:
utACK fa2630328687645fbc7dd1ea46aac32514025715
Tree-SHA512: 8297fbacf32b4868b12accc1c052d352d02d96540a1fc883de9d04a3df8734116deecc33046495c9a3af6d79fec7f8d63afbfa5e401a2ca8d7c70f0f13735c0d
176325a5a47befe32d480b3dc206dd0e64e04b21 [net processing] Remove dropmessagestest (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
-dropmessagestest is a command line option that causes 1 in n received
messages to be dropped. The Bitcoin P2P protocol is stateful and in
general cannot handle messages being dropped. Dropped
version/verack/ping/pong messages will cause the connection to time out
and be torn down. Other dropped messages may also cause the peer to
believe that the peer has stalled and tear down the connection.
It seems difficult to uncover any actual issues with -dropmessagestest,
and any coverage that could be generated would probably be easier to
trigger with fuzz testing.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
cr ACK 176325a5a47befe32d480b3dc206dd0e64e04b21
practicalswift:
cr ACK 176325a5a47befe32d480b3dc206dd0e64e04b21
dhruv:
cr ACK 176325a
amitiuttarwar:
ACK 176325a5a47befe32d480b3dc206dd0e64e04b21
Tree-SHA512: bd582e5e8c9eb272a5d8ec01ff07c36c0033fbb84c30d1c72c87a7a6c7290021dcaf7bf549179a8b95aeb4f7243158d5593bc7fcf1ec16213782e470fe36bb89
b23349b8804fb60c6b3d7d0e2a95927a0d1b49b9 rpc: Add missing description of vout in getrawtransaction help text (Ben Carman)
Pull request description:
In `getrawtransaction` the vout did not have a description. I gave it the same description as the one used in `decoderawtransaction`.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK b23349b8804fb60c6b3d7d0e2a95927a0d1b49b9 🏯
Tree-SHA512: 3833b97c82a46dfeb7ac825d4b2514b4b05ce54ac41f2144a8e2f2093b3411fe1d090c1e5b0c3d09200a2ea164c8d17ece12cdb43bbaeaeccc51a9da6dd7b7a3
23d8f346896c806581189c9eb870c7833c09f5be fuzz: replace CNode code with fuzz/util.h::ConsumeNode() (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
Noticed this while updating the CNode fuzzing in #20210.
- cc26fab48d76a813d798657b18ae1af08a301150 created `test/fuzz/net.cpp` in May 2020
- 79ef8324d4c85ed16a304e98805724b8a created a CNode factory utility `test/fuzz/util.h::ConsumeNode()` in October 2020
This PR updates `fuzz/net.cpp` from the first commit to use `ConsumeNode()` from the second commit.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK 23d8f346896c806581189c9eb870c7833c09f5be
Tree-SHA512: 26f7685395b3d48fcf40dde0d479d5c2fb4e953ec9371940b19eee16bb30aee4840b081e1a918b924a9704c1bef484302ea3e8fe63819a3bba73e7eb805164f1
010eed3ce03cf4fc622a48f40fc4d589383f7a44 doc: warn that incoming conns are unlikely when not using default ports (Adam Jonas)
Pull request description:
Closes#5150.
This was mostly copied from #5285 by sulks, who has since quit GitHub.
The issue has remained open for 6 years, but the extra explanation still seems useful.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
re-ACK 010eed3ce03cf4fc622a48f40fc4d589383f7a44
Tree-SHA512: d240fb06bba41ad8898ced59356c10adefc09f3abb33e277f8e2c5980b40678f2d237f286b476451bb29d2b94032a7dee2ada3b2efe004ed1c2509e70b48e40f
a33442fdc73eabd1c5596ab92954344edc9517e6 Remove m_is_manual_connection from CNodeState (Antoine Riard)
Pull request description:
Currently, this member is only used to exclude MANUAL peers from discouragement
in MaybePunishNodeForBlock(). Manual connections are already protected in
MaybeDiscourageAndDisconnect(), independently from their network
processing behaviors.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
cr ACK a33442fdc73eabd1c5596ab92954344edc9517e6
promag:
Code review ACK a33442fdc73eabd1c5596ab92954344edc9517e6.
jnewbery:
utACK a33442fdc73eabd1c5596ab92954344edc9517e6
amitiuttarwar:
code review ACK a33442fdc73eabd1c5596ab92954344edc9517e6
Tree-SHA512: cfe3f3dfa131373e3299002d34ae9e22ca6e1a966831bab32fcf06ff1d08f06095b4ab020cc4d267f3ec05ae23fbdc22373382ab828b999c0db11b8c842a4f0c
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Bad naming is noticed in https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5026 by
thephez
## What was done?
Renamed `assetLockedAmount` in CbTx to `creditPoolBalance`
Renamed also some local variables and functions to make it matched also.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run functional/unit tests - succeed
Called python's rpc binding `node.getblock(block_hash)['cbTx']`:
Got this result:
```
{'version': 3, 'height': 1556, 'merkleRootMNList': '978b2b4d1b884de62799b9eaee75c7812fea59f98f80d5ff9c963b0f0f195e14', 'merkleRootQuorums': 'bc7a34eb114f4e4bf38a11080b5d8ac41bdb36dd41e17467bae23c94ba06b013', 'bestCLHeightDiff': 0, 'bestCLSignature': '000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000', 'creditPoolBalance': Decimal('7.00141421')}
```
## Breaking Changes
Renamed `assetLockedAmount` in CbTx to `creditPoolBalance`. @shumkov be
informed
## 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
NOTE: There is slight difference with original backport due to future changes
in bitcoin#19272, bitcoin#19763 - otherwise functional test p2p_addr_relay.py fails
fa1da3d4bfc0511a89f5b19d5a4d89e55ff7ccde test: Add basic addr relay test (MarcoFalke)
fa1793c1c44a3f75a09f9c636467b8274c541bdd net: Pass connman const when relaying address (MarcoFalke)
fa47a0b003f53708b6d5df1ed4e7f8a7c68aa3ac net: Make addr relay mockable (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
As usual:
* Switch to std::chrono time to be type-safe and mockable
* Add basic test that relies on mocktime to add code coverage
ACKs for top commit:
naumenkogs:
utACK fa1da3d
promag:
ACK fa1da3d4bfc0511a89f5b19d5a4d89e55ff7ccde (fabe56e44b6f683e24e37246a7a8851190947cb3 before https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18454#issuecomment-607866453), fa5bf23d527a450e72c2bf13d013e5393b664ca3 was dropped since last review.
Tree-SHA512: 0552bf8fcbe375baa3cab62acd8c23b2994efa47daff818ad1116d0ffaa0b9e520dc1bca2bbc68369b25584e85e54861fe6fd0968de4f503b95439c099df9bd7
fixup - see #19272, #19763
13d2a33537a403ac47a989be92109d3214375b6a Fix unregister_all_during_call cleanup (Russell Yanofsky)
Pull request description:
Use `TestingSetup` fixture to fix `unregister_all_during_call` test not calling `UnregisterBackgroundSignalScheduler`, which could trigger an assert in `RegisterBackgroundSignalScheduler` when called in later tests
Failure reported by fanquake https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18551#issuecomment-610974251
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK 13d2a33537a403ac47a989be92109d3214375b6a if appveyor unit tests pass
Tree-SHA512: d2ec8ff14c54d97903af50031abfac1f38ec1c3aabc90371cfd5b79481fa69d3d77f339bfdf7d2178fd85e83402f72eda7cf4d339e5bbfa7e6e1a68836643b93
fa1a92224dd78de817d15bcda35a8310254e1a54 rpc: Avoid initialization-order-fiasco on static CRPCCommand tables (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Currently the fiasco is only theoretical because all content of the table are compile-time constants. However, the fiasco materializes should they ever become run-time constants (e.g. #18531).
ACKs for top commit:
promag:
ACK fa1a92224dd78de817d15bcda35a8310254e1a54.
practicalswift:
ACK fa1a92224dd78de817d15bcda35a8310254e1a54 -- fiasco bad :)
Tree-SHA512: cccadb0ad56194599b74f04264d74c34fa865958580a850efc6474bbdc56f30cadce6b2e9a6ad5472ff46c3f4c793366acd8090fad409a45b25d961f2d89da19
7a2ecf16df938dd95d3130a46082def7a02338eb Wallet: Change IsMine check in CWallet::DelAddressBook from assert to failure (Luke Dashjr)
2952c46b923042f2de801f319e03ed5c4c4eb735 Wallet: Replace CAddressBookData.name with GetLabel() method (Luke Dashjr)
d7092c392e10889cd7a080b3d22ed6446a59b87a QA: Test that change doesn't turn into non-change when spent in an avoid-reuse wallet (Luke Dashjr)
Pull request description:
Follow-up to #18192, not strictly necessary for 0.20
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
re-ACK 7a2ecf16df, only change is adding an assert_equal in the test 🔰
jnewbery:
utACK 7a2ecf16df938dd95d3130a46082def7a02338eb
Tree-SHA512: e0933ee40f705b751697dc27249e1868ed4874254b174ebdd0a7150125d8c818402e66df2371718c7eeb90e67ee2317215fb260aa9b9d7b9b45ee436de2988ff
7b8e15728d1ad058a4b7d7569fd5d5ba6806ca28 rpc: Fix rpcRunLater race in walletpassphrase (João Barbosa)
Pull request description:
Release locks before calling `rpcRunLater`.
Quick explanation: `rpcRunLater` leads to `event_free` which calls `event_del` which can wait for the event callback to finish if it's already running and that callback will try to lock wallet mutex - which is already locked in http thread.
Fixes#14995 , fixes#18482. Best reviewed with whitespace changes hidden.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK 7b8e15728d, only tested that this avoids the node freezing. Did not look at how libevent works or how the deadlock happens or if this breaks other stuff. 📞
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 7b8e15728d1ad058a4b7d7569fd5d5ba6806ca28. Just updated comment since last review
Tree-SHA512: 17874a2fa7b0e164fb0d7ee4cb7d59650275b8c03476fb291d60af8b758495457660d3912623fb26259fefe84aeba21c0a9e0c6467982ba511f19344ed5413ab
2276339a176f83ffe8ceefb3e41ecca8601aa13b Add test for UnregisterAllValidationInterfaces bug (Russell Yanofsky)
3c61abbbc847d725f30d169278d84655571407c1 Do not clear validationinterface entries being executed (Pieter Wuille)
Pull request description:
The previous code for MainSignalsInstance::Clear would decrement the reference
count of every interface, including ones that were already Unregister()ed but
still being executed.
This fixes the issue pointed out here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18524/files#r404395685 . It's not currently observable.
ACKs for top commit:
jonasschnelli:
utACK 2276339a176f83ffe8ceefb3e41ecca8601aa13b - reviewed code and test (thanks @ryanofsky for adding the test).
MarcoFalke:
ACK 2276339a176f83ffe8ceefb3e41ecca8601aa13b 🎎
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 2276339a176f83ffe8ceefb3e41ecca8601aa13b. No change to bugfix, just rebased and new test commit added since last review
Tree-SHA512: c1d68e7c681a45c6cadc84e407c2266bcb4b12d34264e1232a61c4eadb74b551231c5a3b1d041de39f507aef4dfa7d4589b8bfe1833f069c739c6270d2a05dbe
d6815a2313158862d448733954a73520f223deb6 refactor: drop boost::signals2 in validationinterface (Russell Yanofsky)
Pull request description:
Stop using boost::signals2 internally in validationinterface. Replace with std::list and Add/Remove/Clear/Iterate helper functions.
Motivation for change is to reduce dependencies and avoid issues happening with boost versions before 1.59: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18517, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18471
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK d6815a2313158862d448733954a73520f223deb6
laanwj:
ACK d6815a2313158862d448733954a73520f223deb6
hebasto:
re-ACK d6815a2313158862d448733954a73520f223deb6
promag:
ACK d6815a2313158862d448733954a73520f223deb6.
Tree-SHA512: 4fc0f14a8446e8616cc142af6c3d36815f3254525d30348ba8e4d4bc74c249a5a8c9bc119bdd1be7ebd7abe0b784bc0c5551a3e156a766890cb2fdd891a95919
d3a56be77a9d112cde4baef4314882170b9f228f Revert "gui: Avoid Wallet::GetBalance in WalletModel::pollBalanceChanged" (Russell Yanofsky)
bf0a510981ddc28c754881ca21c50ab18e5f2b59 gui: Avoid wallet tryGetBalances calls before TransactionChanged or BlockTip notifications (Russell Yanofsky)
2bc9b92ed8b7736ad67876398a0bb8287f57e9b3 Cancel wallet balance timer when shutdown requested (Russell Yanofsky)
83f69fab3a1ae97c5cff8ba1e6fd191b0fa264bb Switch transaction table to use wallet height not node height (Russell Yanofsky)
Pull request description:
Main commit `gui: Avoid wallet tryGetBalances calls` is one-line change to `WalletModel::pollBalanceChanged` that returns early if there hasn't been a new `TransactionChanged` or `BlockTip` notification since the previous poll call. This is the same behavior that was implemented in #18160, now implemented in a simpler way.
The other commits are a straight revert of #18160, and two tweaks to avoid relying on `WalletModel::m_client_model` lifetime which were causing travis failures with earlier versions of this PR.
Motivation for this change is to be able to revert #18160 and cut down on unnecessary cross-process calls that happen when #18160 is combined with #10102
This PR is part of the [process separation project](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/10).# This is a combination of 2 commits.
0933a37078e1ce3a3d70983c3e7f4b3ac6c3fa37 gui: Avoid Wallet::GetBalance in WalletModel::pollBalanceChanged (João Barbosa)
Pull request description:
Each 250ms the slot `WalletModel::pollBalanceChanged` is called which, at worst case, calls `Wallet::GetBalance`. This is a waste of resources since most of the time there aren't new transactions or new blocks. Fix this by early checking if cache is dirty or not.
The actual balance computation can still hang the GUI thread but that is tracked in #16874 and should be fixed with a solution similar to #17135.
ACKs for top commit:
hebasto:
ACK 0933a37078e1ce3a3d70983c3e7f4b3ac6c3fa37, I have not tested the code, but I have reviewed it and it looks OK, I agree it can be merged.
jonasschnelli:
utACK 0933a37078e1ce3a3d70983c3e7f4b3ac6c3fa37
instagibbs:
ACK 0933a37078e1ce3a3d70983c3e7f4b3ac6c3fa37
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 0933a37078e1ce3a3d70983c3e7f4b3ac6c3fa37, but I would prefer (not strongly) for #17905 to be merged first. This PR can be simpler if it is based on #17905, so tryGetBalances can just be left alone instead of changing into to a more complicated tryGetBalancesIfNeeded function, and then getting changed back later when we want to optimize it out.
jonatack:
ACK 0933a37078e based primarily on code review, despite a lot of manual testing with a large 177MB wallet.
Tree-SHA512: 18db35bf33a7577666658c8cb0b57308c8474baa5ea95bf1468cd8531a69857d8915584f6ac505874717aa6aabeb1b506ac77630f8acdb6651afab89275e38a1
Dash uses the height and difficulty of the previous block to calculate
the subsidy for the current block... which in the case of the genesis
block is block -1, which doesn't exist.
Attempting in reading `pprev` which is will evaluate to a `nullptr`, so
for any blocks <=0, we fetch the subsidy expected from block 0 from
CChainParams.
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
There's one type of output that potentially can be useful for bloom
filter.
It's follow-up for TODO for dashpay/dash#4857.
Asset Lock transactions have:
- standard inputs (covered by regular bloom filter implementation)
- standard outputs (covered by regular bloom filter implementation)
- special outputs that have public key to proof owing this credits on
platform and claiming it.
Asset Unlock transactions have:
- no inputs (no need bloom)
- standard outputs (covered by regular bloom filter implementation)
So far as there's only one special case, let's have this data in the
bloom filter because it can potentially help to show information such as
"Deposit to platform" on mobile clients.
## What was done?
- added special case for Asset Lock transactions for bloom filter
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests. Doesn't actually tested how bloom filter
works.
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
1816327e533d359c237c53eb6440b2f3a7cbf4fa p2p: Put disconnecting logs into BCLog::NET category (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
It's too noisy:
```
$ cat debug.log | wc -l
28529
$ cat debug.log | grep "Disconnecting and discouraging peer" | wc -l
10177
```
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
noban, addnode and local peers are still unconditionally logged (as they should), but this one can go into a category, so cr-ACK 1816327e533d359c237c53eb6440b2f3a7cbf4fa
practicalswift:
ACK 1816327e533d359c237c53eb6440b2f3a7cbf4fa for the reasons MarcoFalke gave above.
ajtowns:
ACK 1816327e533d359c237c53eb6440b2f3a7cbf4fa
Tree-SHA512: c312c1009090840659b2cb1364d8ad9b6ab8e742fc462aef169996d93c76c248507639a00257ed9d73a6916c01176b1793491b2305e92fdded5f9de0935b6ba6
fac7ab1d5b58fb9cfd80d5cf74ac4d2e5cb8eff2 refactor: Use C++17 std::array where possible (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Using the C++11 std::array with explicit template parameters is problematic because overshooting the size will fill the memory with default constructed types.
For example,
```cpp
#include <array>
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
std::array<int, 3> a{1, 2};
for (const auto& i : a) {
std::cout << i << std::endl; // prints "1 2 0"
}
}
```
ACKs for top commit:
jonasschnelli:
Code Review ACK fac7ab1d5b58fb9cfd80d5cf74ac4d2e5cb8eff2
practicalswift:
cr ACK fac7ab1d5b58fb9cfd80d5cf74ac4d2e5cb8eff2
vasild:
ACK fac7ab1d
promag:
Code review ACK fac7ab1d5b58fb9cfd80d5cf74ac4d2e5cb8eff2.
Tree-SHA512: ef7e872340226e0d6160e6fd66c6ca78b2ef9c245fa0ab27fe4777aac9fba8d5aaa154da3d27b65dec39a6a63d07f1063c3a8ffb667a98ab137756a1a0af2656
cadb77a6ab8a3e6f56062cfaec4dd8168c71b39d net: Add compat.h header for htonl function (Hennadii Stepanov)
f796f0057bc7dad8e7065831b07f432fc0fb9f08 net: Drop unneeded headers when compat.h included (Hennadii Stepanov)
467c34644861a5267601255650e27c7aadab31dc net: Drop unneeded Windows headers in compat.h (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
It is the `compat.h` header's job to provide platform-agnostic interfaces for internet operations.
No need in `#include <arpa/inet.h>` scattered around.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
re-ACK cadb77a6ab8a3e6f56062cfaec4dd8168c71b39d: patch looks even better
laanwj:
Code review ACK cadb77a6ab8a3e6f56062cfaec4dd8168c71b39d
Tree-SHA512: 625ff90b2806310ab856a6ca1ddb6d9a85aa70f342b323e8525a711dd12219a1ecec8373ec1dca5a0653ffb11f9b421753887b25615d991ba3132c1cca6a3c6e
1e62350ca20898189904a88dfef9ea11ddcd8626 refactor: Improve use of explicit keyword (Fabian Jahr)
c502a6dbfb854ca827a5a3925394f9e09d29b898 lint: Use c++17 std in cppcheck linter (Fabian Jahr)
Pull request description:
I found the `extended-lint-cppcheck` linter still uses `std=c++11` when reviewing #20471. The only difference in the output after this change is one line is missing:
```
src/script/descriptor.cpp:159:5: warning: Struct 'PubkeyProvider' has a constructor with 1 argument that is not explicit. [noExplicitConstructor]
```
After some digging, I am still not sure why this one is ignored with c++17 when 40 other`noExplicitConstructor` warnings were still appearing.
In the second commit, I fix these warnings, adding `explicit` where appropriate and adding fixes to ignore otherwise.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
cr ACK 1e62350ca20898189904a88dfef9ea11ddcd8626: patch looks correct!
MarcoFalke:
review ACK 1e62350ca20898189904a88dfef9ea11ddcd8626
Tree-SHA512: dff7b324429a57160e217cf38d9ddbb6e70c6cb3d3e3e0bd4013d88e07afc2292c3df94d0acf7122e9d486322821682ecf15c8f2724a78667764c05d47f89a12
fa40168ab3102b9ad850f967a0e7fa22dbfbd0c6 Remove unused bits from service flags enum (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Remove service bits that haven't been observed on the active network for years and won't ever be observed on the network with this meaning. Keeping this dead assignment in our source code forever doesn't add any value.
I somehow forgot to do this in commit fa0d0ff6e1bee60fde63724ae28a51aac5a94d4a.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK fa40168ab3102b9ad850f967a0e7fa22dbfbd0c6
practicalswift:
cr ACK fa40168ab3102b9ad850f967a0e7fa22dbfbd0c6
fanquake:
ACK fa40168ab3102b9ad850f967a0e7fa22dbfbd0c6
Tree-SHA512: 376e5ac05940493cf2209fea60515c843e978c4b476f2524f6bf7a37a646d237c3ddcf6c0fa23641f9ba550f625609703d9b51b4be631a7f2a90e1092b557232
fa8abdc9953e381715493b259908e246914793b0 rpc: Use FeeModes doc helper in estimatesmartfee (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Not sure why this doesn't use the doc helper, probably an oversight?
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK fa8abdc9953e381715493b259908e246914793b0
Tree-SHA512: 1f2dc8356e3476ddcf9cafafa7f9865ad95bed1e3067c0edab8e3c483e374bdbdbecc066167554b4a1b479e28f6a52c4ae6a75a70c67ee4e1ff4f3ba36b04001
6690adba08006739da0060eb4937126bdfa1181a Warn when binaries are built from a dirty branch. (Tyler Chambers)
Pull request description:
- Adjusted `--version` flag behavior in bitcoind and bitcoin-wallet to have the same behavior.
- Added `--version` flag to bitcoin-tx to match.
- Added functionality in gen-manpages.sh to error when attempting to generate man pages for binaries built from a dirty branch.
mitigates problem with issue #20412
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Tested ACK 6690adba08006739da0060eb4937126bdfa1181a
Tree-SHA512: b5ca509f1a57f66808c2bebc4b710ca00c6fec7b5ebd7eef58018e28e716f5f2358e36551b8a4df571bf3204baed565a297aeefb93990e7a99add502b97ee1b8
## 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
