## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Platform and research team have requested this change.
## What was done?
`quorum info` was updated with the introduction of new field
`previousConsecutiveDKGFailures` that be returned only for rotated
LLMQs.
This field will hold the number of previously consecutive failed DGKs
for the corresponding quorumIndex before the currently active one.
Note: If no previously commitments were found then 0 will be returned
for `previousConsecutiveDKGFailures`.
Example:
- DKG `A` was successful
- DKG `B` failed
- DKG `C` failed
- DKG `D` was successful
- DKG `E` was successful
- `previousConsecutiveDKGFailures` = 0 when requesting for quorum `A`
(because `A` is the first ever created quorum for that quorumIndex)
- `previousConsecutiveDKGFailures` = 2 when requesting for quorum `D`
- `previousConsecutiveDKGFailures` = 0 when requesting for quorum `E`
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
With 18.2, block
`0000000000000044356e582f9748f9baf084e5b7946e6386b32620d540830fda` is
marked invalid with `bad-qc-invalid`.
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
While the 19 isn’t active -> Calculate rotation members based on 18.1
code
Once 19 active -> Calculate rotation members based on 18.2 code
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
Provide a general summary of your changes in the Title above
Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it
improves
Dash Core user experience or Dash Core developer experience
significantly:
* Any test improvements or new tests that improve coverage are always
welcome.
* All other changes should have accompanying unit tests (see
`src/test/`) or
functional tests (see `test/`). Contributors should note which tests
cover
modified code. If no tests exist for a region of modified code, new
tests
should accompany the change.
* Bug fixes are most welcome when they come with steps to reproduce or
an
explanation of the potential issue as well as reasoning for the way the
bug
was fixed.
* Features are welcome, but might be rejected due to design or scope
issues.
If a feature is based on a lot of dependencies, contributors should
first
consider building the system outside of Dash Core, if possible.
-->
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
<!--- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? -->
<!--- If it fixes an open issue, please link to the issue here. -->
This fixes an issue where qfcommit messages can be replayed from the
past, then are validated and propagated to other nodes. This patch
changes it so that old qfcommits are not relayed.
## What was done?
<!--- Describe your changes in detail -->
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!--- Please describe in detail how you tested your changes. -->
<!--- Include details of your testing environment, and the tests you ran
to -->
<!--- see how your change affects other areas of the code, etc. -->
Deployed to a node, and ensured that the log messages are shown.
## Breaking Changes
<!--- Please describe any breaking changes your code introduces -->
## Checklist:
<!--- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Code was still using legacy scheme for `pubKeyOperator` of each
`CSimplifiedMNListEntry` while calculating `MerklerootMNList` while v19
HF was active.
## What was done?
When building `CSimplifiedMNList` for `MerklerootMNList`, this PR adds
the correct set of `nVersion` for `CSimplifiedMNListEntry` so that basic
scheme will be used instead of legacy.
Furthermore, DIP3 unit tests suites for v19 will test for 1000 blocks
instead of 900 to cover v19 activated period.
## 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
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
8098dea06944f9de8b285f44958eb98761f133ee test: Add mempool_updatefromblock.py (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
This PR adds a new test for mempool update of transaction descendants/ancestors information (count, size) when transactions have been re-added from a disconnected block to the mempool.
It could be helpful for working on PRs like #17925, #18191.
ACKs for top commit:
ariard:
ACK 8098dea
Tree-SHA512: 7e808fa8df8d7d7a7dbdc3f79361049b49c7bce9b58fd5539b28c9636bedac747695537e500d7ed68dc8bdb80167ad3f1c01086f7551691405d2ba2e38ef1d06
fa262712ca0981cb0ee68cd3dd99a214a20dcbf1 test: Check submitblock return values (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Add `assert_equal` in some tests to check the `submitblock` return value
ACKs for top commit:
robot-visions:
ACK fa262712ca0981cb0ee68cd3dd99a214a20dcbf1
Tree-SHA512: 25d9effe82a4f6852184b9ac848f96336cc2cafb0bb07edb2792f00cd363f0759575bc9c164dd62f64425d3754028b4acd0675600c07d51277aa80bf66c6f960
9f5608c2893f89cd56c7c548b748996199e0da1d test: check for matching object hashes in wait_for_getdata (Danny Lee)
Pull request description:
Previously, `wait_for_getdata` only looked for the presence of a recent `"getdata"` message. Additionally checking the object hashes inside the message should make tests involving `wait_for_getdata` more robust.
`p2p_sendheaders.py` already overrides `wait_for_getdata` do this check; we can use the same approach consistently across all tests that call `wait_for_getdata`.
This PR is progress towards #18614 , but closing that issue would also involve some additional changes to `wait_for_getheaders`.
ACKs for top commit:
theStack:
ACK 9f5608c2893f89cd56c7c548b748996199e0da1d 🍻
Tree-SHA512: 8e7f95881c19631db014d4bb2399fea0d14686a32542f6ca3b60809744b0d684eac4e4c107c87143991f3cd0c2d4ab09d0c17486239768a9b40bee25f2e4d54a
3718ae2ef8dd2559e435bf8d7f5ed5217611ce81 [tests] Don't initialize PrecomputedTransactionData in txvalidationcache tests (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
PrecomputedTransactionData is initialized inside CheckInputScripts(). No need to pre-initialize it before calling into CheckInputScripts().
Normally, I wouldn't bother, but we're making changes to `PrecomputedTransactionData` in #17977 which would break these tests without removing these constructions. Might as well get these changes out of the way here.
ACKs for top commit:
robot-visions:
ACK 3718ae2ef8dd2559e435bf8d7f5ed5217611ce81
sipa:
utACK 3718ae2ef8dd2559e435bf8d7f5ed5217611ce81
Tree-SHA512: bc9c095035a7072a2a91941df38cdbb969e817264efbaa6dcb88cc3ab132d9264aa0751fa588d1a5e45f37b4d2bb1903cda078765f0bbcc87d9cc47cbec5356a
fabfcad8764bb8f807b0ac5f3482b414278a4525 test: Bump timeout in wallet_import_rescan (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Avoid timeouts when starting the node, also make error message more verbose
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK fabfcad8764bb8f807b0ac5f3482b414278a4525 -- patch looks correct
Tree-SHA512: 8fd60a05380349f521d0e814d2f268702dfbe57c7567a4f6e94435498dfdd32909179d75fded44757ecb1a93a4045842bc6d00bfd6cd18ba751513461359c7b0
fa320975411af4f0e41771d89958a77fd7a2284b test: Create cached blocks not in the future (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
This avoids test failures when tests assume blocks are not from the future, like in wallet_dump: https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6607130193035264?command=ci#L3306
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
ACK fa320975411af4f0e41771d89958a77fd7a2284b
Tree-SHA512: 60b6882e0e1df8c5d67f034533407a45d3685983891b67ff4631072bfd0a93a325c7ca18758d7a2df252e4fcdb7c87321cb1e84458b22782e57e719eec634c22
9cdddae3b4efee071d71ba3b6629a53017332f6f test: add rpc_signrawtransaction logging (Jon Atack)
4d6cde38cefa61209d307ed8015bdd40f2695668 test: refactor rpc_signrawtransaction witness script tests (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
As a follow-up to #18484, the new tests are good but bury the one non-duplicate line in each test that sets the witness script, and there is no logging in the testfile. This PR makes it easy to see what is unique to each of the new tests and adds logging.
ACKs for top commit:
theStack:
ACK 9cdddae3b4🥚🐰
Tree-SHA512: 7b1ca303326658afb90b7635abc9fe8bb65f0be004124d4dcf38702bb6f38bc06ce33c0642be4ad5d511453d003cdefeea691e66e3b963a4feb66f6237a3c241
555567ace9baae3c80e118eeca434d5c424a3487 test: Extend wallet_dump test to cover comments (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
ACKs for top commit:
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 555567ace9baae3c80e118eeca434d5c424a3487. Nice new checks in this test. I confirmed this catches the missing FormatISO8601DateTime call you discovered in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17954#discussion_r406891999
Tree-SHA512: 71aa23dd039f3bcdee642b01151edd1a0d44f48cedd070f5858148c8cb8abd6f5edfd212daeba38e35c843da5ea6c799e5a952105fdecedac355a5a843c05a84
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
<!--- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? -->
<!--- If it fixes an open issue, please link to the issue here. -->
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/4966
## What was done?
Serialization now depends on the protocol version, and we use an updated
serialization that is spv friendly for the new version
## How Has This Been Tested?
hasn't
## Breaking Changes
this should be backwards compatible, but this likely should get some
release notes.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
With 18.2, block
`0000000000000044356e582f9748f9baf084e5b7946e6386b32620d540830fda` is
marked invalid with `bad-qc-invalid`.
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
While the 19 isn’t active -> Calculate rotation members based on 18.1
code
Once 19 active -> Calculate rotation members based on 18.2 code
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
When constructing `CSimplifiedMNListDiff`,
`CSimplifiedMNListDiff::nVersion` is set to 2 if the v19 fork is active.
It turns out that `CSimplifiedMNListEntry::nVersion` wasn't set to 2 as
well as it was supposed.
Because we used `emplace_back` when filling the list of
`CSimplifiedMNListEntry`, this actually constructed the object with the
default value of 1 instead of copying it.
Surprising but I managed to see that while debugging.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
Co-authored-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
```
POTENTIAL DEADLOCK DETECTED
Previous lock order was:
(2) 'cs_main' in governance/governance.cpp:1096 (in thread 'init')
(1) 'cs' in governance/governance.cpp:1096 (in thread 'init')
Current lock order is:
(1) 'cs' in governance/governance.cpp:778 (in thread 'msghand')
'cs' in governance/object.cpp:104 (in thread 'msghand')
(2) '::cs_main' in validation.cpp:117 (in thread 'msghand')
```
#5021 follow-up
## What was done?
Lock `cs_main` earlier
## How Has This Been Tested?
run dashd on testnet
## Breaking Changes
none
## Checklist:
<!--- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
We shouldn't have changed it in the first place if we want to avoid
additional migration/reindexing. I did not think about it when I
proposed this patch in #5021, sorry 🙈 Thanks @ogabrielides for noticing
👍#5021 follow-up
## What was done?
<!--- Describe your changes in detail -->
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!--- Please describe in detail how you tested your changes. -->
<!--- Include details of your testing environment, and the tests you ran
to -->
<!--- see how your change affects other areas of the code, etc. -->
## Breaking Changes
<!--- Please describe any breaking changes your code introduces -->
## Checklist:
<!--- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
