We can reduce the diff by keeping the name `MAX_HEADERS_RESULTS` for
`MAX_HEADERS_RESULTS_NEW` as `MAX_HEADERS_RESULTS_OLD` is only
referenced once (in `GetHeadersLimit()`)
57fb0874ef feat: broadcast dsq messages using the inventory system (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
DSQ messages are 142 bytes.
Previously, assuming a relatively highly connected masternode hosting 100 connection, each round of coinjoin will result in 14.2KB (100*142) of inbound and outbound traffic each.
## What was done?
Now, using the inventory system, a message will first use 36 bytes per peer (sending and receiving), plus the size of a `getdata` message and the actual message itself. As a result, bandwidth usage for 1 round of mixing would be closer to 36 * 100 + 142 (dsq) + 36 (getdata) = ~3.8KB, a reduction of around ~73%
## How Has This Been Tested?
Has not been; @UdjinM6 especially please review well :)
## Breaking Changes
Does introduce a new protocol version, but in a backwards compatible way. I don't think this would need to be delayed to v22 for any reason.
## 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)_
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: 3dc39a339cba29d8cf207cec76ecace5ad0e11d1892ca0f65f9253a2b1d90313da21c6c178c2476756c5566ece0fab777006cd609b7984df906a9206c25d921d
DSQ messages are 142 bytes.
Previously, assuming a relatively highly connected masternode hosting 100 connection, each round of coinjoin will result in 14.2KB (100*142) of inbound and outbound traffic each.
Now, using the inventory system, a message will first use 36 bytes per peer (sending and receiving), plus the size of a `getdata` message and the actual message itself. As a result, bandwidth usage for 1 round of mixing would be closer to 36 * 100 + 142 (dsq) + 36 (getdata) = ~3.8KB, a reduction of around ~73%
ea98d9c2eff86e6537f35ac4381ac169daacde36 rpc: fix/add missing RPCExamples for "Util" RPCs (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
Similar to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18398, this PR gives the RPCExamples in the RPC category "Util" (that currently contains `createmultisig`, `deriveaddresses`, `estimatesmartfee`, `getdescriptorinfo`, `signmessagewithprivkey`, `validateaddress`, `verifymessage`) some love by fixing one broken and adding three missing examples:
- fixed `HelpExampleRpc` for `createmultisig` (disturbing escape characters and quotation marks)
- added missing `HelpExampleRpc` for
- `deriveaddresses` (also put descriptor in a new string constant)
- `estimatesmartfee`
- `getdescriptorinfo` (also put descriptor in a new string constant)
Output for `createmultisig` example on the master branch:
```
$ curl --user __cookie__ --data-binary '{"jsonrpc": "1.0", "id": "curltest", "method": "createmultisig", "params": [2, "[\"03789ed0bb717d88f7d321a368d905e7430207ebbd82bd342cf11ae157a7ace5fd\",\"03dbc6764b8884a92e871274b87583e6d5c2a58819473e17e107ef3f6aa5a61626\"]"]}' -H 'content-type: text/plain;' http://127.0.0.1:8332/
Enter host password for user '__cookie__':
{"result":null,"error":{"code":-1,"message":"JSON value is not an array as expected"},"id":"curltest"}
```
Output for `createmultisig` example on the PR branch:
```
$ curl --user __cookie__ --data-binary '{"jsonrpc": "1.0", "id": "curltest", "method": "createmultisig", "params": [2, ["03789ed0bb717d88f7d321a368d905e7430207ebbd82bd342cf11ae157a7ace5fd","03dbc6764b8884a92e871274b87583e6d5c2a58819473e17e107ef3f6aa5a61626"]]}' -H 'content-type: text/plain;' http://127.0.0.1:8332/
Enter host password for user '__cookie__':
{"result":{"address":"3QsFXpFJf2ZY6GLWVoNFFd2xSDwdS713qX","redeemScript":"522103789ed0bb717d88f7d321a368d905e7430207ebbd82bd342cf11ae157a7ace5fd2103dbc6764b8884a92e871274b87583e6d5c2a58819473e17e107ef3f6aa5a6162652ae","descriptor":"sh(multi(2,03789ed0bb717d88f7d321a368d905e7430207ebbd82bd342cf11ae157a7ace5fd,03dbc6764b8884a92e871274b87583e6d5c2a58819473e17e107ef3f6aa5a61626))#4djp057k"},"error":null,"id":"curltest"}
```
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
ACK ea98d9c2eff86e6537f35ac4381ac169daacde36 looked at the code, rebased to master, ran the helps, did not try running the added json-rpc examples
Tree-SHA512: d6ecb6da66f19517065453357d210102e2cc9f1f8037aeb6a9177ff036d0c21773dddf5e0acdbc71edbbde3026e4d1e7ce7c0935cd3e023c60f34e1b173b3299
23812555b1 fix: possible deadlock during calculation of signals for historical blocks during re-index (Konstantin Akimov)
1087489fd4 feat: bury v20 deployment (Konstantin Akimov)
64cedb30bd feat: actually test something EHF unit tests (Konstantin Akimov)
762a808b8c chore: drop irrelevant bip9 code from feature_llmq_rotation.py (Konstantin Akimov)
7735631aad fix: remove v20 from test feature_llmq_evo as far as mn_rr used (Konstantin Akimov)
ca83b26815 fix: crash in CreditPool: it meant to check that DIP0003 is activated (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
V20 is activated on mainnet: time to bury it!
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/6186
## What was done?
Hard-fork v20 is buried and it requires to implement multiple fixes, simplifications, refactoring:
- some tests for EHF moved from functional tests to unit tests
- fixed crash in Credit Pool if DIP3 is not activated yet
- added a requirement for v20 activation for `CMNHFManager::GetSignalsStage`
- removed useless code from functional test feature_llmq_rotation
- renamed variables "v20" to "mn_rr" in feature_llmq_evo.py so far as actually used fork is mn_rr
## How Has This Been Tested?
Some unit and functional tests to succeed.
Done reindex (just in case):
src/qt/dash-qt -reindex -assumevalid=0
src/qt/dash-qt -reindex -assumevalid=0 -testnet
## 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
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
ACK 23812555b1
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 23812555b1
Tree-SHA512: eec35745baa695f3f286d39b6a61fa0a9f34820b13d1dd4cfbd1efe707850283892c39bf7fe49c49c812e0c02465d64df11480b3f12aa7f21b59a71eeae7260e
fb92a8ef7b ci: fix, in github actions CI, we don't actually check out the PR, but the base (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Actually check out the PR for GitHub actions CI. I knew this was an issue for a lil bit since we implemented it. Time to fix it.
Note: Github Actions based CI is experimental, and we still primarily use GitLab. Functionals tests don't even run on GitHub Actions CI yet.
## What was done?
Check out the actual PR commit
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
- [ ] 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)_
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK fb92a8ef7b
Tree-SHA512: 31b3737328ac66217c66c99efce6a3ccfe9e8b9a2453a8b226c12c394e2433828d20165a9dfa4c9463ae4fa5015a7d07f451dde98e937a230e04087383230a02
There's little sense in passing a ref to `ArgsManager` just to set a few
values because we'll be `const`-ing them in an upcoming commit.
Arguments supplied are expected to last the lifetime of the program's
instance and there's little reason to keep re-fetching those values.
2e8f9f9f08 refactor: better readability (UdjinM6)
9ad537380b ci: less api calls when checking potential conflicts (UdjinM6)
9f3d5b08c7 ci: improve conflicts checker to skip PRs which are a draft (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently, CI will report a lot of conflicts on most normal PRs. This is because a lot of times a WIP PR will be opened which depends on another. This will result in both being unhappy.
## What was done?
Instead, skip any PR which is considered a draft.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Hasn't, wish us luck!
## Breaking Changes
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)_
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK 2e8f9f9f08
Tree-SHA512: 3c498d406244bf288df21dc57b28120d2f50c409c1cf1311e3681647bc76d435910e7bb81e9bf6441c057644602324b8be451e66a9fc19a28be30100a7c70087
e92aad7cff test: make sure MNs don't vote twice even when they are allowed to (UdjinM6)
3d75390e4e fix: correct conditions for YES voting (UdjinM6)
ec1392c6de chore: make clang-format and linter happy (UdjinM6)
a6320865c4 fix: avoid voting for the same trigger multiple times (UdjinM6)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
We just had a sb voting period and I noticed that the network is way too spammy and produces too many votes (10x+ the expected numbers). It turns out that relying on `ProcessVoteAndRelay` on mainnet is not enough because rate-check expires too soon and MNs are able to vote again and again. On testnet it was never an issue because the voting period there is really short.
## What was done?
Check known votes to make sure we never voted earlier.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run tests, run a MN on mainnet and 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
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_
ACKs for top commit:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK e92aad7cff
Tree-SHA512: 142e23d3a19fa9527fa5257eb790e558d3507a7a857f17c6e02fd58eeb5643fcfb48d824d227e0ea7cd3dae6a6d7d871b3af88b13077f5af074ed1911e42bb28
0a7a234bd3 merge bitcoin#28110: correct Fedora systemtap dep (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
c92eb67c40 merge bitcoin#27458: Detect USDT the same way how it is used in the code (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
f4a53ba8ce merge bitcoin#26945: systemtap 4.8 (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
88696129f3 merge bitcoin#25794: don't rely on block_connected USDT event order in tests (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
457bbd3f8b merge bitcoin#25360: SystemTap 4.7 (RISC-V support) (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
f3b219ad0d merge bitcoin#24358: USDT tracepoint interface tests (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
5b10a5a2fd merge bitcoin#23907: utxocache tracepoints follow up (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
c3d7e3a192 merge bitcoin#26944: fix systemtap download URL (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
264e02fcc7 merge bitcoin#23724: add systemtap's sys/sdt.h as depends for GUIX builds with USDT tracepoints (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
6cc596b99a merge bitcoin#22902: utxocache tracepoints (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
644a47ef9a merge bitcoin#23302: drop GetHash().ToString() argument from the `validation:block_connected` tracepoint (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
bfdc9ad364 merge bitcoin#23375: more deterministic coin selection for coinbase UTXOs (oldest first) (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
5718716cd2 merge bitcoin#22955: Rename fBlocksOnly, Add test (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
cacc31213b merge bitcoin#22006: first tracepoints and documentation on User-Space, Statically Defined Tracing (USDT) (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
Pull request description:
## Additional Information
* In [bitcoin#22955](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22955), `fBlocksOnly` has not been renamed to `reject_tx_invs` as Dash uses the inventory system beyond relaying transaction data with the block-relay-only blocklist have a greater set of prohibited messages. This renders the new name misleading but coining a new name may be a source of confusion, making retaining the legacy name desirable.
* Additionally, because the word "transaction" isn't hardcoded into the log message (instead opting to use `CInv::GetCommand()`'s output instead, which for transactions, are "tx"), the expected log message in `p2p_blocksonly.py` has been adjusted accordingly.
* [bitcoin#24358](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24358) depends on [bitcoin#22955](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22955) and [bitcoin#23375](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23375) in order to work as without the latter backport, `interface_usdt_utxocache.py` will return the following error
<details>
<summary>Test run:</summary>
```
debian@debian:~/dash$ sudo ./test/functional/interface_usdt_utxocache.py
[sudo] password for debian:
2024-08-26T17:08:05.234000Z TestFramework (INFO): Initializing test directory /tmp/dash_func_test_n5rb0xy4
2024-08-26T17:08:07.023000Z TestFramework (INFO): testing the utxocache:uncache tracepoint API
2024-08-26T17:08:07.026000Z TestFramework (ERROR): Assertion failed
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/debian/dash/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 160, in main
self.run_test()
File "/home/debian/dash/./test/functional/interface_usdt_utxocache.py", line 149, in run_test
self.test_uncache()
File "/home/debian/dash/./test/functional/interface_usdt_utxocache.py", line 172, in test_uncache
invalid_tx = self.wallet.create_self_transfer(
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/home/debian/dash/test/functional/test_framework/wallet.py", line 166, in create_self_transfer
assert_equal(mempool_valid, tx_info['allowed'])
File "/home/debian/dash/test/functional/test_framework/util.py", line 51, in assert_equal
raise AssertionError("not(%s)" % " == ".join(str(arg) for arg in (thing1, thing2) + args))
AssertionError: not(True == False)
2024-08-26T17:08:07.533000Z TestFramework (INFO): Stopping nodes
2024-08-26T17:08:08.535000Z TestFramework (WARNING): Not cleaning up dir /tmp/dash_func_test_n5rb0xy4
2024-08-26T17:08:08.535000Z TestFramework (ERROR): Test failed. Test logging available at /tmp/dash_func_test_n5rb0xy4/test_framework.log
2024-08-26T17:08:08.535000Z TestFramework (ERROR):
2024-08-26T17:08:08.535000Z TestFramework (ERROR): Hint: Call /home/debian/dash/test/functional/combine_logs.py '/tmp/dash_func_test_n5rb0xy4' to consolidate all logs
2024-08-26T17:08:08.536000Z TestFramework (ERROR):
2024-08-26T17:08:08.536000Z TestFramework (ERROR): If this failure happened unexpectedly or intermittently, please file a bug and provide a link or upload of the combined log.
2024-08-26T17:08:08.536000Z TestFramework (ERROR): https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues
2024-08-26T17:08:08.536000Z TestFramework (ERROR):
```
</details>
with the underlying error that has been alluded to in d2c4904
```
{'txid': '44b58b10e69321dacf00724f1893c9ecb50fc1f89ed7c70a6c0b3c08f7dc750f', 'allowed': False, 'reject-reason': 'bad-txns-premature-spend-of-coinbase'}
```
* In [bitcoin#24358](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24358), all `interface_usdt_*.py` tests needed minor syntax changes to account for how we invoke certain RPCs. `interface_usdt_utxocache.py` required tweaking with the blocks needed to be eligible for pruning (`450` vs. `350` upstream) and stop the node explicitly to account for the governance validation warning .
This is important as the placement assumes that `test_flush()` is the last test, should this change, the node may need to be manually started before continuing on with the tests after.
* Some `TRACE*` entries may not exactly match the backports they come from because the variables or functions they access may have been amended by a backport done _after_ the backport that introduce the trace entry.
## Breaking Changes
None observed.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas **(note: N/A)**
- [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)_
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK 0a7a234bd3
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK [0a7a234](0a7a234bd3)
Tree-SHA512: 8df11392dd8d152c18d55ac70a446d1eec336bdf1a984cbf41c3202c353358180e05ba4b7182ec2962ea09eefa41d1dc3cd383d358f9b3dec57ce8b67c6e6afd
9876c2d78b docs: add partial release notes (UdjinM6)
b330318db7 refactor: drop circular dependency (UdjinM6)
e54fe42ce8 refactor: use `key_to_p2pkh_script` in more places (UdjinM6)
3ed6246889 test: check `creditOutputs` format (UdjinM6)
ba0e64505b fix: `creditOutputs` in AssetLock tx json output should be an array of objects, not debug strings (UdjinM6)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Txout-s in `creditOutputs` for AssetLock txes should be shown the way txout-s are shown in other places. We should not be using debug strings there.
Example: `getrawtransaction 50757f651f335e22c5a810bd05c1e5aac0d95b132f6454e2a72683f88e3983f3 1`
develop:
```
"assetLockTx": {
"version": 1,
"creditOutputs": [
"CTxOut(nValue=0.01000000, scriptPubKey=76a914cdfca4ae1cf2333056659a2c)"
]
},
```
This PR:
```
"assetLockTx": {
"version": 1,
"creditOutputs": [
{
"value": 0.01000000,
"valueSat": 1000000,
"scriptPubKey": {
"asm": "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 cdfca4ae1cf2333056659a2c8dc656f36d228402 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
"hex": "76a914cdfca4ae1cf2333056659a2c8dc656f36d22840288ac",
"address": "yf6c2VSpWGXUgmjQSHRpfEcTPsbqN4oL4c",
"type": "pubkeyhash"
}
}
]
},
```
kudos to @coolaj86 for finding the issue
## What was done?
Change `CAssetLockPayload::ToJson()` output to be closer to [`TxToUniv()`](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/develop/src/core_write.cpp#L262-L272)
NOTE: `refactor: use key_to_p2pkh_script in more places` commit is a bit unrelated but I decided to add it anyway to make it easier to follow assetlock creation vs getrawtransaction rpc check.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Try example above, run tests
## Breaking Changes
RPC output is different for AssetLock txes
## 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
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
ACKs for top commit:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 9876c2d78b
Tree-SHA512: 158c98ac9e4979bb29c4f54cb1b71806f22aaec92218d92cd2b2e9b9f74df721563e7a6c5f517ea358ac74659fa79f51d1b683002a1cdceb1b8ee80f8fd79375
