## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Many usages of `CBLS{Signature,PrivateKey,PublicKey}` assume using
global variable, even if can be specified explicitly.
Some of these usages have been deglobalized in this PR.
Some prior improvements and fixes are here:
[#5403](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5403)
## What was done?
- Refactored the uses of global variable of `bls_legacy_scheme` from
`SetHex`, `SetByteVector`, some rpc calls.
- Removed flag `checkMalleable` to simplify code because it's always
`true`.
- Removed dependency from `txmempool.h` on `bls.h` to speed up
compilation.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests.
## Breaking Changes
No breaking changes assumed. But in theory behaviour of some RPC can be
more explicit and predictable.
## 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
Allow `upgradetohd` in IBD, better errors, no GUI lock-up
## What was done?
Pls see individual commits. Most of it is changes in whitespaces, might
want to use ?w=1 to review i.e.
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5455/files?w=1
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, try `upgradetohd` 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
`GetVersion` expects `is_basic_scheme_active`, not
`is_bls_legacy_scheme`
## What was done?
see commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
`make check`
## Breaking Changes
luckily only tests are 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
As reported by @kittywhiskers, GCC version 8 complains with `error:
'this' was not captured for this lambda function`
In order to support old GCC compilers, `this` should be captured
explicitly.
## What was done?
Captured `this` explicitly in affected functions: `GetValidMNsCount`,
`GetAllHPMNsCount`, `GetValidHPMNsCount` and `GetValidWeightedMNsCount`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_llmq_hpmn.py` checks MNs count
## 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
Allow generating 12, 18, 24 words mnemonics. Default to 12 words as it's
the most popular option/de-facto a standard now imo.
## What was done?
Add `-mnemonicbits` option, add tests
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, play with wallets on regtest
## Breaking Changes
n/a, old wallets should not be affected
## 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
- make progress calculations sane
- show progress in GUI but only when you need 100+ new keys
- make it stop on shutdown request
- spam less in debug.log
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, run `keypoolrefill` with `1100` (add 100 keys, no gui popup)
and `10000` (100+ keys, progress bar) on testnet wallet, check logs,
verify it can be interrupted on shutdown
## 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
TL;DR: Should hopefully fix crashes like
https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/jobs/4522256293
In dashd we flush all callbacks first and then destroy `g_txindex`. In
tests we had to move `g_txindex` to `TestChainSetup` and its dtor is
executed first, so the order is broken. It also explains why this crash
happens so rare. In most cases tx index is up to date and you need some
kind of a hiccup for scheduler to lag behind a bit. Basically, between
`g_txindex.reset()` and `FlushBackgroundCallbacks`
`BaseIndex::BlockConnected` finally arrives. But it’s processed on a
(now) null instance hence a crash. If it’s earlier - it’s processed
normally, if it’s later - it’s flushed without execution, so there is a
tiny window to catch this crash.
## What was done?
Give tx index a bit of time to process everything
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests (but this crash is rare 🤷♂️ )
## 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
It's super slow for wallets with 100.000s of txes to process lots of
notifications produced by rescan. Skip them all and simply refresh the
whole wallet instead. In my case (500k+ txes testnet wallet) gui update
after `rescanblockchain` time is down from _forever_ to ~30 seconds.
Same for `wipewallettxes true` (#5451 ). Gui update after
`wipewallettxes`/`wipewallettxes false` is instant (cause there are no
txes anymore) vs _forever_ before the patch.
## What was done?
refresh the whole wallet when notification queue is above 10K operations
actual changes (ignoring whitespaces):
d013cb4f5c
## How Has This Been Tested?
running on top of #5451 and #5452 , wiping and rescanning w/ and w/out
this patch.
## 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
It's super slow for wallets with 100.000s of keys and txes to reindex
and to rescan. Batching multiple operations fixes it. In my case (300K+
keys and 500k+ txes testnet wallet) `rescanblockchain` time is down from
6+ hours to ~10 minutes.
Re-calculating `block_time` over and over again inside of the loop in
`AddToWalletIfInvolvingMe` is wasteful, move it out.
## What was done?
batch what's possible, optimize `AddToWalletIfInvolvingMe`
## How Has This Been Tested?
running on top of #5451 , wiping and rescanning w/ and w/out this patch.
## 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
Given the hard fork that happened on testnet, there is now lots of the
transactions that were made on the fork that is no longer valid. Some
transactions could be relayed and mined again but some like coinjoin
mixing won't be relayed because of 0 fee and transactions spending
coinbases from the forked branch are no longer valid at all.
## What was done?
Introduce `wipewallettxes` RPC and `wipetxes` command for `dash-wallet`
tool to be able to get rid of some/all txes in the wallet.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, use rpc/command on testnet wallet
## 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
Version field should always be the first field of a message for better
readibility.
## What was done?
- Introduced new protocol version `MNLISTDIFF_VERSION_ORDER` (`70229`).
- `nVersion` serialisation order is changed for clients with protocol
version greater than or equal to `70229`.
- For clients with protocol version >= `70225` and < `70229` the old
order is used: can be deprecated in the future.
- Increased functional test P2P mininode's protocol version to `70229`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_llmq_rotation.py` with new protocol version.
## 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
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Added the filter `hpmn` for both `masternodelist` and `protx list` rpcs.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
Calling this RPC on 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
- [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
Disabled or non-enforced Chainlocks does not mean you can safely mine
non-locked txes, you could end up mining a block that is going to be
rejected by everyone else if a conflicting tx (missing on your node)
would be IS-locked. I can't find any reason why we have this besides "if
Chainlocks are disabled then smth is wrong so let them all be mined" but
we have spork_2 and spork_3 to control IS behaviour and we check them in
`IsTxSafeForMining` already, that would be a much more straightforward
way to deal with a potential issue.
Noticed this while reviewing #5150 and also while testing v19.2 during
recent testnet v19 re-fork.
## What was done?
Drop this check, adjust tests
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run tests locally
## Breaking Changes
Not quote breaking changes but a change in behaviour: with CLs disabled
it will now take 10 minutes for non-locked txes to be mined, same as
when CLs are enabled.
## 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
@ogabrielides @kittywhiskers I somehow failed to add you guys to the
list of v19.2 contributors 🙈 sorry!
## 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
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
