c0c43ae1471347ea93614e9a25989f13b021f8a8 test: skip backwards compat tests if not compiled with wallet (fanquake)
Pull request description:
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: d9975a1490e69134408b6b724cea26a6c1397d43f59850283b9e338ae38e00fefbcd868fb141e0a4bb55f02076690a99331f29cfa2d0fa66c165032b24a94081
332f373a9dece71717f75eb06e6a1fc957f2952b [scripts] previous_release: improve failed download error message (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
Currently, if the earlier release build/fetch script `previous_release.sh` is invoked with the option `-b` (intending to fetch a binary package from `https://bitcoin.org`) and the download fails, the user sees the following confusing output:
```
$ contrib/devtools/previous_release.sh -r -b v0.9.5
[...]
gzip: stdin: not in gzip format
tar: Child returned status 1
tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting now
```
This implies that the download worked, but the archive is corrupted, when in reality the HTML document containing the delivery fail reason (most likely 404 Not Found) is saved and tried to get unpacked. In contrast to wget, curl is a bit stubborn and needs explicit instructions to react to server errors via the flag `-f` (outputs error message and returns error code, ideal for scripts): https://curl.haxx.se/docs/manpage.html#-f
On the PR branch, the output on failed download looks now the following:
```
$ contrib/devtools/previous_release.sh -r -b v0.9.5
[...]
curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
Download failed.
```
ACKs for top commit:
fanquake:
ACK 332f373a9dece71717f75eb06e6a1fc957f2952b
Tree-SHA512: 046c931ad9e78aeb2d13faa4866d46122ed325aa142483547c2b04032d03223ed2411783b00106fcab0cd91b2f78691531ac526ed7bb3ed7547b6e2adbfb2e93
c456145b2c65f580683df03bf10cd39000cf24d5 [test] add 0.19 backwards compatibility tests (Sjors Provoost)
b769cd142deda74fe46e231cc7b687a86514f2f1 [test] add v0.17.1 wallet upgrade test (Sjors Provoost)
9d9390dab716f07057c94e8e21f3c7dd06192f35 [tests] add wallet backwards compatility tests (Sjors Provoost)
c7ca6308968b29a0e0edc485cd06e68e5edb7c7d [scripts] support release candidates of earlier releases (Sjors Provoost)
8b1460dbd1b732f06d4cebe1fa6844286c7a0056 [tests] check v0.17.1 and v0.18.1 backwards compatibility (Sjors Provoost)
ae379cf7d12943fc192d58176673bcfe7d53da53 [scripts] build earlier releases (Sjors Provoost)
Pull request description:
This PR adds binaries for 0.17, 0.18 and 0.19 to Travis and runs a basic block propagation test.
Includes test for upgrading v0.17.1 wallets and opening master wallets with older versions.
Usage:
```sh
contrib/devtools/previous_release.sh -f -b v0.19.0.1 v0.18.1 v0.17.1
test/functional/backwards_compatibility.py
```
Travis caches these earlier releases, so it should be able to run these tests with little performance impact.
Additional scenarios where it might be useful to run tests against earlier releases:
* creating a wallet with #11403's segwit implementation, copying it to an older node and making sure the user didn't lose any funds (although this PR doesn't support `v0.15.1`)
* future consensus changes
* P2P changes (e.g. to make sure we don't accidentally ban old nodes)
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK c456145b2c65f580683df03bf10cd39000cf24d5 🔨
Tree-SHA512: 360bd870603f95b14dc0cd629532cc147344f632b808617c18e1b585dfb1f082b401e5d493a48196b719e0aeaee533ae0a773dfc9f217f704aae898576c19232
## 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
Seems as old command `git merge-base --fork-point` doesn't work for some
cases of tree structure
Particularly it didn't worked for PR #5546:
> @kwvg kwvg force-pushed the utilbps branch from 82d8a61 to f1bc1c3
Basically, one of the step `gfb` script -- `git merge-base --fork-point
develop 82d8a61d227fb66e2c6d4402ebb88e5740271eb9` returned me wrong
commit. After pulling origin/develop it returns just an empty string.
But `git show-branch --merge-base develop
82d8a61d227fb66e2c6d4402ebb88e5740271eb9` worked and returned correct
commit:
"3e1c6dd731 fix: reorder initializations (#5545)" which is the last
common commit with develop branch
## What was done?
Updated recommended function `function gfd()` in doc
## How Has This Been Tested?
Tested on PR #5546 that failed before and returned wrong diff for me
## 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
docs: add release notes for 5342
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Odysseas Gabrielides <odysseas.gabrielides@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Added release notes for #5121.
## 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
- [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>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Added release notes for #5493
## 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
- [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: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
## 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
## What was done?
Added release notes for #5262.
## 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
- [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>
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Added release notes for #5525.
## 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
- [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>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## 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
