12f094ec215aacf30e4e380c0399f80d4e45c345 test: use constants for CSV/CLTV activation heights in rpc_signrawtransaction (Sebastian Falbesoner)
746f203f1950a7df50b9a7de87a361cc7354ffb4 test: introduce `generate_to_height` helper, use in rpc_signrawtransaction (Sebastian Falbesoner)
e3237b1cd07a5099fbb0108218194eb653b6a9f3 test: check that CSV/CLTV are active in rpc_signrawtransaction (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This PR primarily aims to solve the current RPC timeout problem for test rpc_signrawtransaction.py, as described in #22542. In the course of that the test is also improved in other ways (see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22542#pullrequestreview-714297804).
Reviewers guideline:
* In `test_signing_with_cltv()`, a comment is fixed -- it wrongly referred to CSV, it should be CLTV.
* As preparation, assertions are added that ensure that CSV and CLTV have been really activated after generating blocks by checking the 'softforks' output of the getblockchaininfo() RPC. Right now in master, one could remove (or decrease, like in #22542) the generate calls and the test would still pass, when it shouldn't.
* A helper `generate_to_height()` is introduced which improves the previous way of reaching a block height in two ways:
- instead of blindly generating TH blocks to reach target block height >= TH, the current block height CH is taken into account, and only (TH - CH) are generated in total
- to avoid potential RPC timeouts, the block generation is split up into multiple generatetoaddress RPC calls ([as suggested by laanwj](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22542#issuecomment-886237866)); here chunks of 200 blocks have been chosen
* The helper is used in the affected sub-tests, which should both speed-up the test (from ~18s to ~12s on my machine) and avoid potential timeouts
* Finally, the activation constants for CSV and CLTV are used instead of using magic numbers 500 and 1500
Open questions:
* Any good naming alternatives for `generate_to_height()`? Not really happy with the name, happy to hear suggestions
* Where to put the CSV and CLTV activation height constants in the test_framewor folder? I guess importing constants from other tests isn't really the desired way to go
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review and tested ACK 12f094ec215aacf30e4e380c0399f80d4e45c345
rajarshimaitra:
reACK 12f094ec21
Tree-SHA512: 14509f6d3e5a5a05d6a30a3145bb82cd96a29d9d8a589abf1944a8bf34291cde78ce711195f52e9426588dc822b3618ec9b455e057360021ae46152bb7613516
38ecd6f951 test: reduce BRRHeight on regtest (Odysseas Gabrielides)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
In regtest, Block Reward Reallocation is buried at height 2500, which happens after v20 activation.
## What was done?
Reduced BRRHeight in regtest from 2500 to 1000.
The purpose of this change is to simplify regtests of Platform as well.
Note: This change affects only regtest.
## How Has This Been Tested?
tests
## Breaking Changes
no, this only affects Regtest (where we make no guarantees about breaking stuff)
## 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)_
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: b5a1c2b2c2b70682f266d9d0af9e048a03417c0cb2480eb5ab5838965342b6465acd10d8dac5a0d3c5c5f59f4e36ac5b909a838bc3805c2265a83776e92b4827
0f239203a8 partial bitcoin#24169: Add --enable-c++20 option (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
a3b79267e0 merge bitcoin#20744: Use std::filesystem. Remove Boost Filesystem & System (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
be7ac493d0 merge bitcoin#24167: consistently use fsbridge:: for ifstream / ofstream (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
7ffea4348f merge bitcoin#24104: Make compatible with boost 1.78 (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
7c270e6883 merge bitcoin#24026: Block unsafe std::string fs::path conversion copy_file calls (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
b0d2484a0b merge bitcoin#23522: Improve fs::PathToString documentation (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
20d359b570 partial bitcoin#23469: Remove Boost build note from build-unix.md (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
193f6fde2e merge bitcoin#23446: Mention that BerkeleyDB is for legacy wallet in build-unix (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
ecfac10b8e merge bitcoin#22937: Forbid calling unsafe fs::path(std::string) constructor and fs::path::string() method (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
23fe7e2f07 chore: dashify symbols in some unit tests (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
28b96a071d merge bitcoin#22840: fix unoptimized libraries in depends (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
Pull request description:
## Additional Information
* Depends on https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6085
* Depends on https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6137
* Dependency for https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6150
## 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 **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_
ACKs for top commit:
knst:
utACK 0f239203a8
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 0f239203a8
Tree-SHA512: 4b8f0ae55185ece27d8084a5339196b7ed993c8138f4c59a0db3e16729d4edf4a59a68a8c7309c32df57734c07182821c4878b55c253da5df763204ad7158426
21f174aff1 feat: improve query categorisation in Qt App (Konstantin Akimov)
c863473286 test: add spending asset unlock tx in functional tests (Konstantin Akimov)
1fb67ece0e feat: make a support of Qt app to show Platform Transfer transaction as a new type of transaction (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Transfers from platform have incorrectly shown amount in Dash Core wallet app.
They also shown in Qt app as self-send that is not completely true.
## What was done?
Added new type of transaction to Qt App, added a filter for its type, fixed calculation of output for tx records.
As well added a new type of transaction `platform-transfer` in rpc output of `gettransaction` RPC
## How Has This Been Tested?
Make a Platform Transfer transaction on RegTest and check it in Dash Core
Helper to see it: export dpath=/tmp/dash_func_test_PATHPATH/ ; src/qt/dash-qt -regtest -conf=$dpath/node0/dash.conf -datadir=$dpath/node0/ -debug=0 -debuglogfile=/dev/stdout
## Breaking Changes
There's new type of transaction "platform-transfer" in rpc output of `gettransaction`.
**This PR DOES NOT change any consensus rules.**
Breaking changes that makes withdrawal transaction immature is moved to https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6128
## 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
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: ec2a54a910f121ad30ff8e94cf17080b5b3c651872e9bc3de9ec0924ca7f7a0e526b74b05cde26aaf860e3809e67f66142112319a69c216527e5bcb1b8a2b8f6
f22ade31b9 tests: more strict test for withrawal 1000 and minor improvements (UdjinM6)
4ad18f64f5 fix: properly test hard limit of 1000 dash (Konstantin Akimov)
a2fe2b27d9 test: minor improvements for credit pool functional test (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
DIP for Credit Pool says:
```
The withdrawal should not be mined if:
* It requests more DASH than the credit pool contains
* It requests more than 1000 DASH
* The credit pool contains more than 1000 DASH, and the withdrawal would result in more than a 10% reduction in the credit pool over the 576-block window
* The credit pool contains less than 1000 DASH, and the withdrawal would result in more than 100 DASH being removed from the pool over the 576-block window
```
Though, current functional test for asset locks improperly test this case, because threshold for big withdrawal happens by 10%, not 1000 dash.
## What was done?
Improvements for functional asset lock test to actually test a limit 1000 dash, not just 10%
## How Has This Been Tested?
See changes
## Breaking Changes
N/A, changes only for tests
## 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
ACKs for top commit:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK f22ade31b9
Tree-SHA512: 2fdbfa85a3fc41683d68d1577916178ad686ccf0fba6abb22dc84a7ad69e0d44f876e371a24935c5167baa5491000662cc98cc1cd205e3817f0ffc65d2b4953d
b73f48f3b9 Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#22057: test: use MiniWallet (P2PK mode) for feature_dersig.py (MarcoFalke)
d5a8d5e6a0 Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#22048: test: MiniWallet: introduce enum type for output mode (MarcoFalke)
f4cd20b115 Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#21945: test: add P2PK support to MiniWallet (MarcoFalke)
7be6db6dca docs: add an explanation for vsize in MiniWallet (Konstantin Akimov)
5d10b41302 Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#21840: test: Misc refactor to get rid of &foo[0] raw pointers (MarcoFalke)
7522ee9868 Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#21900: test: use MiniWallet for feature_csv_activation.py (MarcoFalke)
c6f603c26f Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#21897: rpc: adjust incorrect RPCHelpMan types (MarcoFalke)
1dffe3ab9f Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#21867: test: use MiniWallet for p2p_blocksonly.py (MarcoFalke)
81d21eea14 Merge #21557: test: small cleanup in RPCNestedTests tests (MarcoFalke)
cc169c2457 partial Merge #20842: docs: consolidate typo & url fixing (MarcoFalke)
2be1604405 Merge #20459: rpc: Fail to return undocumented return values (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
## What was done?
Backports from v22 bitcoin.
Mostly related to MiniWallet and RPC improvements, see commits
## 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
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK b73f48f3b9
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK b73f48f3b9
Tree-SHA512: 588f3a30697c0d77dadcc463aba71a00bf26eeef41b0cb8b9197799a217ebeb1d1ce7b5021ccc4576f0e9ca0e75ad840820cdc682fe8f120596788a528727a0b
764b3a3239 test: disable mocktime in p2p_eviction.py (UdjinM6)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
No idea why CI has no issues but `p2p_eviction.py` fails locally after #6103 (my guess is that it's because P2PInterface can't work with mocktime properly).
## What was done?
Disable mocktime in `p2p_eviction.py`
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run tests 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
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: a9be9032c7697ff47b2256395f0fb126deeccd9bee6f101a71a1f88e1f25b08fa039ed5eb4cd4b1b308e8136d64510a544b7019ed9147ea2e80f8cb83ff25412
3e05a57297ddc9c55604a41e50a7a94d220db7ee test: use MiniWallet (P2PK mode) for feature_dersig.py (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This PR enables one more of the non-wallet functional tests (feature_dersig.py) to be run even with the Bitcoin Core wallet disabled. A valid DER-signature is created by using the recently introduced P2PK-Mode of the MiniWallet (#21945).
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
cr ACK 3e05a57297ddc9c55604a41e50a7a94d220db7ee
Tree-SHA512: 0fb8da8ed8b47f68bcb57301eb4f0171a6c9e44539b7554626969347e5d6f80b3b9085f2cc160cd038a990f0d81b8b614846260fbed43b5f950d77f1b7aa81cf
6cebac598e5e85eadd60eb1274d7f33d63ce1108 test: MiniWallet: introduce enum type for output mode (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This is a follow-up PR to #21945 which lifted the number of MiniWallet's tx output modes from 2 to 3 (by adding P2PK Support).
Since the current way of specifying the mode on the ctor via two booleans is ugly and error-prone (see table in comment https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21945#issuecomment-842526575), a new Enum type `MiniWalletMode` is introduced that can hold the following values:
- ADDRESS_OP_TRUE
- RAW_OP_TRUE
- RAW_P2PK
Also adds documentation that should guide the user on which mode is useful for what etc. with a summary table. (Can also be split up in a separate commit or shortened if that is desired, maybe it's considered to be too verbose).
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
cr ACK 6cebac598e5e85eadd60eb1274d7f33d63ce1108
Tree-SHA512: cbbc10806d9d9e62829548094415e9f1a281cd247b9a9fc7f7f33b923c723aa03e7bc3024623a77fb1f7da4d73455fa8244840f746980d32acdad97ee12100da
4bea30169218e2f21e0c93a059966b41c8edd205 test: use P2PK-MiniWallet for feature_csv_activation.py (Sebastian Falbesoner)
dc7eb64e83f5b8e63f12729d5f77b1c920b136e4 test: MiniWallet: add P2PK support (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This PR adds support for creating and spending transactions with raw pubkey (P2PK) outputs to MiniWallet, [as suggested by MarcoFalke](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21900#discussion_r629524841). Using that mode in the test `feature_csv_activation.py`, all txs submitted to the mempool follow the standard policy, i.e. `-acceptnonstdtxn=1` can be removed.
Possible follow-ups:
* Improve MiniWallet constructor Interface; an enum-like parameter instead of two booleans would probably be better
* Look at other tests that could benefit from P2PK (e.g. feature_cltv.py?)
* Check vsize also for P2PK txs (vsize varies due to signature, i.e. a range has to be asserted)
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK 4bea30169218e2f21e0c93a059966b41c8edd205
Tree-SHA512: 9b428e6b7cfde59a8c7955d5096cea88af1384a5f49723f00052e9884d819d952d20a5ab39bb02f9d8b6073769c44462aa265d84a33e33da33c2d21670c488a6
bd7f27d16dacf6f7de3b4f6bd052def41d9601be refactor: feature_csv_activation.py: move tx helper functions to methods (Sebastian Falbesoner)
2eca46b0aa0ecf4738500b53523d7013985b387d test: use MiniWallet for feature_csv_activation.py (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This PR enables one more of the non-wallet functional tests (feature_csv_activation.py) to be run even with the Bitcoin Core wallet disabled by using the new MiniWallet instead, as proposed in #20078.
Short reviewers guideline:
- Since we exclusively work with anyone-can-spend outputs here (raw scriptPubKey = OP_TRUE), signing is not needed anymore. The function `sign_transaction` and its calls are removed, after changing a tx (e.g. its scriptSig or nVersion) a simple `.rehash()` call is sufficient. Also, generating an address `self.nodeaddress` (and with that, passing it to the the various test tx creation/sending helper methods) is not needed anymore and removed.
- The test repeatedly uses the same input for creating different txs (e.g. with different txversions 1 and 2). To let `MiniWallet` create a tx with a specific input, we have to call `.get_utxo()` before which also marks the UTXO as spent. The method is changed to also support keeping the UTXO in its internal list (`mark_as_spent=False`). With the behaviour on master, the second call to `.get_utxo()` with the same input would fail.
- To keep the diff in the first commit short, the `miniwallet` is set as a global variable, to avoid passing it on every tx creation/spending helper. The global is eliminated in the second (refactoring) commit, where all the helpers are moved to the test class as methods. By that, we can use `self.nodes[0]` directly in the helpers and don't have to pass it again and again. I think there could still be a lot of improvements/refactoring done in the test, but that should hopefully serve as a good basis.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK bd7f27d16dacf6f7de3b4f6bd052def41d9601be
MarcoFalke:
review ACK bd7f27d16dacf6f7de3b4f6bd052def41d9601be 🐕
Tree-SHA512: 24fb6a0f7702bae40d5271d197119827067d4b597e954d182e4c1aa5d0fa870368eb3ffed469b26713fa8ff8eb3ecc06abc80b2449cd68156d5559e7ae8a2b11
9f767e84381d678ed24e3f7f981976f9da34971e test: use MiniWallet for p2p_blocksonly.py (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This PR enables one more of the non-wallet functional tests (p2p_blocksonly.py) to be run even with the Bitcoin Core wallet disabled by using the new MiniWallet instead, as proposed in #20078.
Note that MiniWallet creates segwit transactions by default, i.e. txid and wtxid are not identical and we have to return both from `check_p2p_tx_violation(...)`: wtxid is needed to match an expected `"received getdata for: wtx ..."` debug output, whereas the txid is needed to wait for a certain tx via `wait_for_tx(...)`.
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
ACK 9f767e84381d678ed24e3f7f981976f9da34971e tested with `--disable-wallet`
Tree-SHA512: f08001f02c3c310ccdf713af0ba17304368a36414f412749908bbe8c03ad1e902190b8768b79f3b4909855762f285e7ab1b627cc4f45c90b42bb097a43cb4318
BACKPORT NOTICE:
missing changes in src/test/validation_tests.cpp (signet)
1112035d32ffe73a4522226c8cb2f6a5878d3ada doc: fix various typos (Ikko Ashimine)
e8640849c775efcf202dbd34736fed8d61379c49 doc: Use https URLs where possible (Sawyer Billings)
Pull request description:
Consolidates / fixes the changes from #20762, #20836, #20810. There is no output when `test/lint/lint-all.sh` is run.
Closes#20807.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK 1112035d32ffe73a4522226c8cb2f6a5878d3ada
Tree-SHA512: 22ca824688758281a74e5ebc6a84a358142351434e34c88c6b36045d2d241ab95fd0958565fd2060f98317e62e683323b5320cc7ec13592bf340e6922294ed78
fa5362a9a0c5665c1a4de51c3ce4758c93a9449e rpc: Add missing BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain to wallet RPCs (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Wallet RPCs that allow a rescan based on block-timestamp or block-height
need to sync with the active chain first, because the user might assume
the wallet is up-to-date with the latest block they got reported via a
blockchain RPC.
ACKs for top commit:
meshcollider:
utACK fa5362a9a0c5665c1a4de51c3ce4758c93a9449e
Tree-SHA512: d4831f1f08f854f9a49fc969de86c438f856e41c2163c801a6ff36dc2f6299cb342b44663279c524a8b7ca9a50895db1243cd7d49bed79277ada857213f20a26
7e32fde912b3924fdb27ec1f658ac11fcf160b3e test: feature_cltv.py: don't return tx copies in modification functions (Sebastian Falbesoner)
9ab2ce0a6673acc7ee0f85158fc087fce0fc7dd8 test: drop unused node parameters in feature_cltv.py (Sebastian Falbesoner)
0c2139a3f160d1d443460e4c5928109a6ab8cd11 test: fix typo in feature_cltv.py (s/ctlv/cltv/) (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This tiny PR cleans up the test `feature_cltv.py` in the following ways:
* fixes a typo (s/ctlv/cltv/); compared to CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY, CHECKTIMELOCKVERIFY probably also sounds good and you [even get some search results for it](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22CHECKTIMELOCKVERIFY%22), but it's still wrong ;)
* drops the unused "node" parameters from the tx modification functions
* don't return a copy from the tx modification functions; it's modified in-place, hence a copy is not needed and `cltv_validate(tx, ...)` looks more natural than `tx = cltv_validate(tx, ...)`
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
review ACK 7e32fde912b3924fdb27ec1f658ac11fcf160b3e 📼
Tree-SHA512: d2e6230977442f6a511d0f7c99431a44ad3a423647f4f327ce2ce8efe78bf9616c0d2093f5e3c3550f690dcb3f625ddf53227505c01ced70227425f249c25364
0d9fdd329e81cb171d687042290f4e6b1507d7f4 test, doc: refer to the correct variable names in p2p_invalid_tx.py (aitorjs)
Pull request description:
_tx_orphan_no_fee_ and _tx_orphan_invalid_ don't exist as transactions.
Have been replaced by _tx_orphan_2_no_fee_ and _tx_orphan_2_invalid_ respectively.
**Motivation**: Comments are more accurate and easy understandable under the tests context (I think).
ACKs for top commit:
kristapsk:
utACK 0d9fdd329e81cb171d687042290f4e6b1507d7f4
theStack:
ACK 0d9fdd329e81cb171d687042290f4e6b1507d7f4 📃
Tree-SHA512: a4cafd931e51fe2a67085e10e9c61178c864c14982664d112b76327e040af08cd1de04eca4a8ae980fad57ba7078017ce02fc60e7658f38380e8172c2ae28b77
127b4608e9dbb8217c74c9332e82fcec8c326fa8 test: Check if specified config file cannot be opened (nthumann)
6bb54708e6457f21596793a7149dc6dfea1dc871 util: Check if specified config file cannot be opened (nthumann)
Pull request description:
Fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22612.
When running e.g. `./src/bitcoind -datadir=/tmp/bitcoin -regtest -conf=/tmp/bitcoin/regtest/bitcoin.conf` and the specified config cannot be opened (doesn't exist, permission denied, ...), the initialization silently uses the default config.
As voidburn already noted:
> I can't think of a situation in which a config file is specified explicitly (in the startup options, as per service unit linked above), but inaccessible, where the fail condition should be to keep booting using defaults instead.
With this patch applied, the initialization will fail immediately, if the specified config file cannot be opened. If no config file is explicitly specified, the behavior is unchanged. This not only affects `bitcoind`, but also `bitcoin-cli` and `bitcoin-qt`.
In the example below the datadir is accessible, but the config file is not due to insufficient permissions:
```
$ ./src/bitcoind -datadir=/tmp/bitcoin -regtest --debug=1 -conf=/tmp/bitcoin/regtest/bitcoin.conf
Error: Error reading configuration file: specified config file "/tmp/bitcoin/regtest/bitcoin.conf" could not be opened.
```
ACKs for top commit:
0xB10C:
ACK 127b4608e9dbb8217c74c9332e82fcec8c326fa8
Zero-1729:
tACK 127b4608e9dbb8217c74c9332e82fcec8c326fa8
theStack:
Tested ACK 127b4608e9dbb8217c74c9332e82fcec8c326fa8
Tree-SHA512: 4fe487921485426f1d1da8d256c388af517b984b639d776aec7b159b3e23b669824093d3bdd31139d9415ed5f5de405b3e6a51b110c8ab471f12b9c99ac67cc1
1bf0bf492f merge bitcoin#24515: Only load BlockMan in BlockMan member functions (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
5c1eb67c42 merge bitcoin#24050: Give m_block_index ownership of CBlockIndexes (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
c440304c85 merge bitcoin#22932: Add CBlockIndex lock annotations, guard nStatus/nFile/nDataPos/nUndoPos by cs_main (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
e303a4ec45 merge bitcoin#23974: Make blockstorage globals private members of BlockManager (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
301163c65e merge bitcoin#23581: Move BlockManager to node/blockstorage (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
732e871a6b merge bitcoin#23785: Move stuff to ChainstateManager (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
b402fd57fa merge bitcoin#23174: have LoadBlockIndex account for snapshot use (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
a08f2f48bf merge bitcoin#21526: UpdateTip/CheckBlockIndex assumeutxo support (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
472caa048a merge bitcoin#22371: Move pblocktree global to BlockManager (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
d69ca833df merge bitcoin#21727: Move more stuff to blockstorage (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
6df927fc60 chore: exclude underscore placeholder from shadowing linter warnings (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
Pull request description:
## Additional Information
* Dependent on https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6078
* Dependent on https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6074
* Dependent on https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6083
* Dependent on https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6119
* Dependency for https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6138
* In [bitcoin#24050](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24050), `BlockMap` is given ownership of the `CBlockIndex` instance contained within the `unordered_map`. The same has not been done for `PrevBlockMap` as `PrevBlockMap` is populated with `pprev` pointers and doing so seems to break validation logic.
* Dash has a specific linter for all Dash-specific code present in Core. The introduction of `util/translation.h` into `validation.h` has caused the linter to trigger shadowing warnings due to a conflict between the common use of `_` as a placeholder/throwaway name ([source](37e026a038/src/spork.cpp (L44))) and upstream's usage of it to process translatable strings ([source](37e026a038/src/util/translation.h (L55-L62))).
Neither C++17 nor C++20 have an _official_ placeholder/throwaway term or annotation for structured bindings (which cannot use `[[maybe_unused]` or `std::ignore`) but [P2169](https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2023/p2169r4.pdf) is a proposal put forth to make it the official placeholder, in that light, the linter will silence shadowing warnings involving an underscore.
## Breaking Changes
None expected
## 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 **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK 1bf0bf492f (with one nit)
knst:
utACK 1bf0bf492f
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 1bf0bf492f
Tree-SHA512: 875fff34fe91916722f017526135697466e521d7179c473a5c0c444e3aa873369019b804dee9f5f795fc7ebed5c2481b5ce2d895b2950782a37de7b098157ad4
Bitcoin uses underscore in util/translation.h for translatable strings
but underscores are also a placeholder used in multiple languages, incl.
C++. The next commit will be introducing backports, one of them will be
placing util/translation.h into validation.h, which is a header used by
Dash-specific code.
This causes a conflict between the normal usage of underscore as a
placeholder and Bitcoin's usage of it as a function name, which is
reported by the Dash-specific linter. We need to exclude shadowing
warnings from the linter to account for this.
b01cd9471f435bb36b8ed5211a56baad51111ad2 test: check that _all_ invalid-CLTV txs are rejected after BIP65 activation (Sebastian Falbesoner)
dbc19814743cb12960a99793197c811e2750a06b test: check that _all_ invalid-CLTV txs are allowed in a block pre-BIP65 (Sebastian Falbesoner)
8d0ce50c4826529a2d30ffc850bce4d44da6019b test: prepare cltv_invalidate to test all failure reasons in feature_cltv.py (Sebastian Falbesoner)
ce994e1202c4820b1ad5c375d3d671fd0a18e092 test: add tx modfication helper function in feature_cltv.py (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
The functional test for [BIP65](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0065.mediawiki) / `OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY` (`feature_cltv.py`) currently only tests one out of five conditions that lead to failure of the op-code -- by prepending the script `OP_1NEGATE OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY OP_DROP` to a tx's first input's scriptSig, the case of "_the top item on the stack is less than 0_" is checked:
f8462a6d27/test/functional/feature_cltv.py (L26-L35)
This PR adds the other cases (5 in total) by taking an integer argument to the function `cltv_invalidate` that is called in a loop instead of only once per testing scenario. Here is the full list of failure conditions and how they are tested (note that the scriptSig should still be valid before activation of BIP65, when `OP_CLTV` is simply a no-op):
* _the stack is empty_
➡️ prepending `OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY` to scriptSig
* _the top item on the stack is less than 0_
➡️ prepending `OP_1NEGATE OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY OP_DROP` to scriptSig
* _the lock-time type (height vs. timestamp) of the top stack item and the nLockTime field are not the same_
➡️ prepending `OPNum(1000) OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY OP_DROP` to scriptSig
➡️ setting tx.vin[0].nSequence=0 and tx.nCheckTimeLock=1296688602 (genesis block timestamp)
* _the top stack item is greater than the transaction's nLockTime field_
➡️ prepending `OPNum(1000) OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY OP_DROP` to scriptSig
➡️ setting tx.vin[0].nSequence=0 and tx.nCheckTimeLock=500
* _the nSequence field of the txin is 0xffffffff_
➡️ prepending `OPNum(500) OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY OP_DROP` to scriptSig
➡️ setting tx.vin[0].nSequence=0xffffffff and tx.nCheckTimeLock=500
The first commit creates a helper function for the tx modification and also includes some tidying up like turning single-line to multi-line Python imports where necessary and cleaning up some PEP8 warnings. The second commit prepares the invalidation function `cltv_invalidate` and the third and the fourth use it and check for the expected reject reason strings ("Operation not valid with the current stack size", "Negative locktime" and "Locktime requirement not satisfied").
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
review ACK b01cd9471f435bb36b8ed5211a56baad51111ad2 🐣
Tree-SHA512: dd82ae86e2bc4f3ab9bb1cfc9f04e4431b2b59c8aaf2a9f4b28654a1577e003fb43c500f99d76ff57e96262168e1cad7c1a0d71158e4b01063737e8f4be1e07d
06e1fb0b170a69996a7ce1ef5203785a7bc6b278 Add new format string placeholders for walletnotify to include relevant block information for transactions (Maayan Keshet)
Pull request description:
This patch includes two new format placeholders for walletnotify:
%b - the hash of the block containting the transaction (zeroed if a mempool transaction)
%h - the height of the block containing the transaction (zero if a mempool transaction)
I've included test suite changes to check and validate the above functional requirements as well as doc/help description changes.
**Motivation**
The walletnotify option is used to be notified of new transactions relevant to the wallet of the node.
A common usage pattern is to perform afterwards additional RPC calls to determine:
1. If this is a mempool transaction or not (i.e. are there any confirmations?)
2. What block was it included in?
3. Did this transaction was seen before and is now seen again because of a fork?
All of these questions can be answered with the current features, but the resulting RPC calls may be expensive in a heavily used node. As this information is readily available when calling the walletnotify callback, it makes sense to save expensive round trips by optionally sending this information at that point in time. I can definitely say we would like to use it in Fireblocks, my employer.
Please let me know of any questions and suggestions.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK 06e1fb0b170a69996a7ce1ef5203785a7bc6b278
Tree-SHA512: d2744e2a7a883f9c3a9fd32237110e048c4b6b11fea8221c33d10b74157f65bbc4351211f441e8c1a4af5d5d38e2ba6b1943a7673dc18860c0553d7b41e00775
bfc083e9b7 Merge #21574: Drop JSONRPCRequest constructors after #21366 (MarcoFalke)
c0cdb0488b Merge #21572: Fix wrong wallet RPC context set after #21366 (MarcoFalke)
2f7814acdd Merge #21035: Remove pointer cast in CRPCTable::dumpArgMap (MarcoFalke)
d3b1ef374c refactor: simplify implementation of RPC composite commands (Konstantin Akimov)
3270becc9b chore: add TODO to make client parsing for composite commands (Konstantin Akimov)
d55759fa79 Merge #20012: rpc: Remove duplicate name and argNames from CRPCCommand (Wladimir J. van der Laan)
1d87ce4e86 Merge #18531: rpc: remove deprecated CRPCCommand constructor (MarcoFalke)
a7e538d7ae fix: missing changes from bitcoin#19250 (Konstantin Akimov)
68c5da41dc feat: fix help message - all subcommands support it now! (Konstantin Akimov)
d3e181f516 fix: add missing client's argument parsing for RPC commands (Konstantin Akimov)
37bd4009c1 refactor: use monostate instead std::optional in CoreContext (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Backports from bitcoin v22 rpc command related
## What was done?
See commits for backports.
Also:
- refactored and significantly simplified implementation of composite commands
- added missing changes from bitcoin#19250
- fix help message for rpc `help` - all subcommands support it now
- add missing client's argument parsing for RPC commands
- CoreContext uses std::monostate instead nullopt which is best-practice for std::variant
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests.
Checked autocomplete for various commands
Checked help for various commands
## 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
ACKs for top commit:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK bfc083e9b7
UdjinM6:
utACK bfc083e9b7
Tree-SHA512: b7b586eac2f848a6808c677252a5965577bc783778fd70d3025b8d510113de2b177d423d72ea5f61ddd8905673bf3458e55810ada371ee235fbaa19de8d2d36f
69c37f4ec2 rpc: make sure `upgradetohd` always has the passphrase for `UpgradeToHD` (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
619b640a77 wallet: unify HD chain generation in CWallet (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
163d31861c wallet: unify HD chain generation in LegacyScriptPubKeyMan (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
Pull request description:
## Motivation
When filming demo footage for https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6093, I realized that if I tried to create an encrypted blank legacy wallet and run `upgradetohd [mnemonic]`, the client would crash.
```
dash@b9c6631a824d:/src/dash$ ./src/qt/dash-qt
QStandardPaths: XDG_RUNTIME_DIR not set, defaulting to '/tmp/runtime-dash'
dash-qt: wallet/scriptpubkeyman.cpp:399: void LegacyScriptPubKeyMan::GenerateNewCryptedHDChain(const SecureString &, const SecureString &, CKeyingMaterial): Assertion `res' failed.
Posix Signal: Aborted
No debug information available for stacktrace. You should add debug information and then run:
dash-qt -printcrashinfo=bvcgc43iinzgc43ijfxgm3ybaadwiyltnawxc5avkbxxg2lyebjwsz3omfwduicbmjxxe5dfmqaaa===
```
The expected set of operations when performing privileged operations is to first use `walletpassphrase [passphrase] [time]` to unlock the wallet and then perform the privileged operation. This routine that applies for almost all privileged RPCs doesn't apply here, the unlock state of the wallet has no bearing on constructing an encrypted HD chain as it needs to be encrypted with the master key stored in the wallet, which in turn is encrypted with a key derived from the passphrase (i.e., `upgradetohd` imports **always** need the passphrase, if encrypted).
You might have noticed that I used `upgradetohd [mnemonic]` instead of the correct syntax, `upgradetohd [mnemonic] "" [passphrase]` that is supposed to be used when supplying a mnemonic to an encrypted wallet, because when you run the former, you don't get told to enter the passphrase into the RPC command, you're told.
```
Error: Please enter the wallet passphrase with walletpassphrase first.
```
Which tells you to treat it like any other routine privileged operation and follow the routine as mentioned above. This is where insufficient validation starts rearing its head, we only validate the passphrase if we're supplied one even though we should be demanding one if the wallet is encrypted and it isn't supplied. We didn't supply a passphrase because we're following the normal routine, we unlocked the wallet so `EnsureWalletIsUnlocked()` is happy, so now the following happens.
```
upgradetohd()
| Insufficient validation has allowed us to supply a blank passphrase
| for an encrypted wallet
|- CWallet::UpgradeToHD()
|- CWallet::GenerateNewHDChainEncrypted()
| We get our hands on vMasterKey by generating the key from our passphrase
| and using it to unlock vCryptedMasterKey.
|
| There's one small problem, we don't know if the output of CCrypter::Decrypt
| isn't just gibberish. Since we don't have a passphrase, whatever came from
| CCrypter::SetKeyFromPassphrase isn't the decryption key, meaning, the
| vMasterKey we just got is gibberish
|- LegacyScriptPubKeyMan::GenerateNewCryptedHDChain()
|- res = LegacyScriptPubKeyMan::EncryptHDChain()
| |- EncryptSecret()
| |- CCrypter::SetKey()
| This is where everything unravels, the gibberish key's size doesn't
| match WALLET_CRYPTO_KEY_SIZE, it's no good for encryption. We bail out.
|- assert(res)
We assume are inputs are safe so there's no real reason we should crash.
Except our inputs aren't safe, so we crash. Welp! :c
```
This problem has existed for a while but didn't cause the client to crash, in v20.1.1 (19512988c6), trying to do the same thing would return you a vague error
```
Failed to generate encrypted HD wallet (code -4)
```
In the process of working on mitigating this crash, another edge case was discovered, where if the wallet was unlocked and an incorrect passphrase was provided to `upgradetohd`, the user would not receive any feedback that they entered the wrong passphrase and the client would similarly crash.
```
upgradetohd()
| We've been supplied a passphrase, so we can try and validate it by
| trying to unlock the wallet with it. If it fails, we know we got the
| wrong passphrase.
|- CWallet::Unlock()
| | Before we bother unlocking the wallet, we should check if we're
| | already unlocked, if we are, we can just say "unlock successful".
| |- CWallet::IsLocked()
| | Wallet is indeed unlocked.
| |- return true;
| The validation method we just tried to use has a bail-out mechanism
| that we don't account for, the "unlock" succeded so I guess we have the
| right passphrase.
[...] (continue call chain as mentioned earlier)
|- assert(res)
Oh...
```
This pull request aims to resolve crashes caused by the above two edge cases.
## Additional Information
As this PR was required me to add additional guardrails on `GenerateNewCryptedHDChain()` and `GenerateNewHDChainEncrypted()`, it was taken as an opportunity to resolve a TODO ([source](9456d0761d/src/wallet/wallet.cpp (L5028-L5038))). The following mitigations have been implemented.
* Validating `vMasterKey` size (any key not of `WALLET_CRYPTO_KEY_SIZE` size cannot be used for encryption and so, cannot be a valid key)
* Validating `secureWalletPassphrase`'s presence to catch attempts at passing a blank value (an encrypted wallet cannot have a blank passphrase)
* Using `Unlock()` to validate the correctness of `vMasterKey`. (the two other instances of iterating through `mapMasterKeys` use `Unlock()`, see [here](1394c41c8d/src/wallet/wallet.cpp (L5498-L5500)) and [here](1394c41c8d/src/wallet/wallet.cpp (L429-L431)))
* `Lock()`'ing the wallet before `Unlock()`'ing the wallet to avoid the `IsLocked()` bail-out condition and then restoring to the previous lock state afterwards.
* Add an `IsCrypted()` check to see if `upgradetohd`'s `walletpassphrase` is allowed to be empty.
## 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 **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_
ACKs for top commit:
knst:
utACK 69c37f4ec2
UdjinM6:
utACK 69c37f4ec2
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 69c37f4ec2
Tree-SHA512: 4bda1f7155511447d6672bbaa22b909f5e2fc7efd1fd8ae1c61e0cdbbf3f6c28f6e8c1a8fe2a270fdedff7279322c93bf0f8e01890aff556fb17288ef6907b3e
earlier it was possible to make it all the way to `EncryptSecret`
without actually having the passphrase in hand until being told off
by `CCrypter::SetKey`, we should avoid that.
also, let's get rid of checks that `UpgradeToHD` is now taking
responsibility for. no point in checking if the wallet is unlocked
as it has no bearing on your ability to upgrade the wallet.
c72ec70fdf feat: implement governance RPCs votealias and votemany for descriptor wallets (Konstantin Akimov)
490832959d refactor: new method to generate a signing message in CGovernanceVote (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
RPCs `governance votemany` and `governance votealias` use forcely LegacyScriptPubKeyMan instead using CWallet's interface.
It causes a failures such as
```
test_framework.authproxy.JSONRPCException: This type of wallet does not support this command (-4)
```
See https://github.com/dashpay/dash-issues/issues/59 to track progress
## What was done?
Use CWallet's interfaces instead LegacyScriptPubKeyMan
## How Has This Been Tested?
Functional tests `feature_governance.py` and `feature_governance_cl.py` to run by both ways - legacy and descriptor wallets.
Run unit and functional tests.
Extra test done locally:
```diff
--- a/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py
+++ b/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py
@@ -242,10 +242,10 @@ class BitcoinTestFramework(metaclass=BitcoinTestMetaClass):
if self.options.descriptors is None:
# Prefer BDB unless it isn't available
- if self.is_bdb_compiled():
- self.options.descriptors = False
- elif self.is_sqlite_compiled():
+ if self.is_sqlite_compiled():
self.options.descriptors = True
+ elif self.is_bdb_compiled():
+ self.options.descriptors = False
```
to flip flag descriptor wallets/legacy wallets for all 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
- [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
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK c72ec70fdf
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK c72ec70fdf
Tree-SHA512: 2c18f0d4acb1c4d57da81bf54f0d155682f558eeb7271df7e6fe75c126ef7f047562794a6730e3ca5351abc4e2daded06b874c2ab77f9c47b840c89d8a158c9f
fa04f9b4ddffc5ef23c2ee7f3cc72a7c2ae49204 rpc: Remove duplicate name and argNames from CRPCCommand (MarcoFalke)
fa92912b4bb4629addcbfdfb7cc000be701614af rpc: Use RPCHelpMan for check-rpc-mappings linter (MarcoFalke)
faf835680be39811827504f77005b6603165f53e rpc: [refactor] Use concise C++11 code in CRPCConvertTable constructor (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Currently, the RPC argument names are specified twice to simplify consistency linting. To avoid having to specify the argnames twice when adding new arguments, remove the linter and add an equivalent test based on RPCHelpMan.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK fa04f9b4ddffc5ef23c2ee7f3cc72a7c2ae49204
Tree-SHA512: 3f5f32f5a09b22d879f24aa67031639d2612cff481d6aebc6cfe6fd757cafb3e7bf72120b30466f59292a260747b71e57322c189d5478b668519b9f32fcde31a
faaf9c58e4aa809019d4ca12747dd47411988e37 remove CRPCCommand constructor that takes rpcfn_type function pointer (MarcoFalke)
fa19bb2cd8c575593583138a84e6bb3444d6196d remove dead rpc code (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Remove the CRPCCommand arguments, now that they are asserted to be equal and thus redundant
### Future work
> Here or follow up, makes sense to also assert type of returned UniValue?
Sure, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. I am going to submit any further works as follow-ups, including:
* Removing all python regex linters on the args, now that RPCMan can be used to generate any output, including the cli.cpp table
* Auto-formatting and sanity checking the RPCExamples with RPCMan
* Checking passed-in json in self-check. Removing redundant checks
* Checking returned json against documentation to avoid regressions or false documentation
* Compile the RPC documentation at compile-time to ensure it doesn't change at runtime and is completely static
### Bugs found
* The assert identified issue #18607
* The changes itself fixed bug #19250
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
tested ACK faaf9c58e4aa809019d4ca12747dd47411988e37
promag:
Tested ACK faaf9c58e4aa809019d4ca12747dd47411988e37.
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK faaf9c58e4aa809019d4ca12747dd47411988e37. Two obviously good simplifications.
Tree-SHA512: 5de3b440f7b2ed2c3e86655d4f0e2e5df9c67e8ce3c7817d5ea5311d1a38690f2f3e28fab41aad6936be9fc884326d037e5f19e85d4d2fe281474dada13911ee
2db69d7b81 chore: add release notes for "quorum platformsign" (Konstantin Akimov)
283c5f89a2 feat: create new composite command "quorum platformsign" (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
It splits from #6100
With just whitelist it is impossible to limit the RPC `quorum sign` to use only one specific quorum type, this PR aim to provide ability for quorum signing for platform quorum only.
## What was done?
Implemented a new composite command "quorum platformsign"
This composite command let to limit quorum type for signing for case of whitelist.
After that old way to limit platform commands can be deprecated - #6105
## How Has This Been Tested?
Updated a functional tests to use platform signing for Asset Unlocks feature.
## 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
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK 2db69d7b81
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 2db69d7b81
Tree-SHA512: b0dff9934137c4faa85664058e1e77f85067cc8d931e6d76ee5b9e610164ac8b0609736d5f09475256cb78d65bf92466624d784f0b13d20136df7e75613662cb
85abbb97b4 chore: add release notes for composite command for whitelist (Konstantin Akimov)
78ad778bb0 feat: test composite commands in functional test for whitelist (Konstantin Akimov)
a102a59787 feat: add support of composite commands in RPC'c whitelists (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
https://github.com/dashpay/dash-issues/issues/66https://github.com/dashpay/dash-issues/issues/65
## What was done?
Our composite commands such as "quorum list" have been refactored to make them truly compatible with other features, such as whitelist, see https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6052https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6051https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6055 and other related PRs
This PR makes whitelist feature to be compatible with composite commands.
Instead implementing additional users such "dapi" better to provide universal way which do not require new build for every new API that has been used by platform, let's simplify things.
Platform at their side can use config such as this one (created based on shumkov's example):
```
rpc: {
host: '127.0.0.1',
port: 9998,
users: [
{
user: 'dashmate',
password: 'rpcpassword',
whitelist: null,
lowPriority: false,
},
{
username: 'platform-dapi',
password: 'rpcpassword',
whitelist: [],
lowPriority: true,
},
{
username: 'platform-drive-consensus',
password: 'rpcpassword',
whitelist: [getbestchainlock,getblockchaininfo,getrawtransaction,submitchainlock,verifychainlock,protx_listdiff,quorum_listextended,quorum_info,getassetunlockstatuses,sendrawtransaction,mnsync_status]
lowPriority: false,
},
{
username: 'platform-drive-other',
password: 'rpcpassword',
whitelist: [getbestchainlock,getblockchaininfo,getrawtransaction,submitchainlock,verifychainlock,protx_listdiff,quorum_listextended,quorum_info,getassetunlockstatuses,sendrawtransaction,mnsync_status]
],
lowPriority: true,
},
],
allowIps: ['127.0.0.1', '172.16.0.0/12', '192.168.0.0/16'],
},
```
## How Has This Been Tested?
Updated functional tests, see commits
## 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
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
LGTM, utACK 85abbb97b4
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 85abbb97b4
Tree-SHA512: 88608179c347420269880c352cf9f3b46272f3fc62e8e7158042e53ad69dc460d5210a1f89e1e09081d090250c87fcececade88e2ddec09f73f1175836d7867b
1840c9441a fix: drop extra pings - follow up for #18638 (UdjinM6)
264e7f9e62 Merge #18638: net: Use mockable time for ping/pong, add tests (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Split from https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6102
## What was done?
So far as bitcoin#19499 is backported, bitcoin#18638 can be finished and removed related workarounds.
## 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
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK 1840c9441a
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 1840c9441a
Tree-SHA512: f34657c14514d6ee596175b3faf9ee44e58e8b0339939a0708d58ab2d119786830c183f9b236ed87c08ef8e1dbd031a38fc596b5aa4d38e10521658df4330e79
d3e842f605 refactor: remove dead code which has no use since composite commands are refactored (Konstantin Akimov)
58c5d431fe fix: follow-up to #6017 - enable one more assert in wallet_descriptor test (Konstantin Akimov)
dbed4a31af fix: update comment for wallet_keypool_hd due to bitcoin#17681 DNM (Konstantin Akimov)
4741bcc5c3 chore: remove outdated todo - removed by bitcoin#16898 (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Multiple TODO is reviewed and fixes in this PR
## What was done?
See commits
## 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
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK d3e842f605
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK d3e842f605
Tree-SHA512: 25080abcce8fa3dbb4e4c71d321b24cb9d23c073e6caf75366be58623023af50d28bc1cdac4098eb78a87b4fe0f3c33d39bb06257f0590b3e42e5fcad161ea2d
0133c9866d feat: add functional test for submitchainlock far ahead in future (Konstantin Akimov)
6004e06769 feat: return enum in RecoveredSig verifying code, apply for RPC submitchainlock (Konstantin Akimov)
130b6d1e96 refactor: replace static private member method to static method (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently by result of `submitchainlock` impossible to distinct a situation when a signature is invalid and when a core is far behind and just doesn't know about signing quorum yet.
This PR aims to fix this issue, as requested by shumkov for needs of platform:
> mailformed signature and can’t verify signature due to unknown quorum is the same error?
> possible to distingush ?
## What was done?
Return enum in CL verifying code `chainlock_handler.VerifyChainLock`.
The RPC `submitchainlock` now returns error with code=-1 and message `no quorum found. Current tip height: {N} hash: {HASH}`
## How Has This Been Tested?
Functional test `feature_llmq_chainlocks.py` is updated
## Breaking Changes
`submitchainlock` return one more error code - not really a breaking change though, because v21 hasn't released yet.
## 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
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK 0133c9866d
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 0133c9866d
Tree-SHA512: 794ba410efa57aaa66c47a67914deed97c1d060326e5d11a722c9233a8447f5e9215aa4a5ca401cb2199b8fc445144b2b2a692fc35494bf3296a74e9e115bda7
