## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Slightly changes the detached signature creation code
## What was done?
Investigated what exactly needed to be done for notarization (docs to
come), tried it again, then when it failed as expected trying to figure
it out, then figuring it out :) simple change in the end.
## How Has This Been Tested?
created macOS detached sigs and notarized 19.0.0-rc.10 binaries and
ensured that all worked as expected. See binary attached here (sha256
3829e863831b05c3d76785540183bee556c4bab03dac98f5872df06668b9cb20)
[dashcore-19.0.0-rc.10-osx.dmg.zip](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/files/11246273/dashcore-19.0.0-rc.10-osx.dmg.zip).
You can also do a signed gitian-build for rc.10 and should replicate
these hashes.
## Breaking Changes
Should be none; I would like to backport this to 19 as a 19.0.1
## 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
This adds a check that ensures branches merge cleanly into master via a
ff-only
## What was done?
Added a GitHub action created via gpt-4 :)
## How Has This Been Tested?
https://github.com/PastaPastaPasta/dash/actions/runs/4703432752/jobs/8341923994
and
https://github.com/PastaPastaPasta/dash/actions/runs/4703457936/jobs/8341980146
for expected pass and expected fail
## Breaking Changes
None, should be back ported to v19.x branch when we get the chance.
## Checklist:
<!--- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
pls see individual commits
fixes an issue (reported by @strophy recently) where mixing wouldn't
start in a fresh new wallet
not 100% sure but
[99867eb](99867eb769)
might also fix#5350 reported by @splawik21 so this could also be a v19
backport candidate
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
mixing on testnet
## Breaking Changes
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`generateblock` was not aware of Dash-specific txes
```
rpc/mining.cpp:375 (generateblock)
Internal bug detected: 'block.vtx.size() == 1'
```
👍 to @strophy for finding it
## What was done?
<!--- Describe your changes in detail -->
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!--- Please describe in detail how you tested your changes. -->
<!--- Include details of your testing environment, and the tests you ran
to -->
<!--- see how your change affects other areas of the code, etc. -->
## Breaking Changes
<!--- Please describe any breaking changes your code introduces -->
## Checklist:
<!--- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
We use `pQuorumBaseBlockIndex` name when we shouldn't and we don't check
that quorum types and block indexes provided as input params in llmq
utils satisfy our requirements. This is kind of ok-ish as long as we use
these functions appropriately but it's better to make things clearer and
to have actual checks imo.
noticed this while reviewing #5366
## What was done?
Rename `pQuorumBaseBlockIndex` to `pCycleQuorumBaseBlockIndex`/`pindex`
in a few places. Check that quorum types and block indexes have expected
values.
## 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
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
This changes are follow up for backport bitcoin/bitcoin#16060
## What was done?
Buried all hardened dash deployments
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests.
Run dash with option `-reindex` for both mainnet/testnet - both succeed.
## Breaking Changes
No breaking changes, it should be fully compatible.
## 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
Move `BuildSimplifiedDiff` to the place it's actually used. This also
resolves 3 circular dependencies we have atm.
## What was done?
mostly trivial move-only changes
## How Has This Been Tested?
it compiles and linter is happy 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 _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Implementation of Randomness Beacon Part 2.
This PR is the next step of #5262.
Starting from v20 activation fork, members for quorums are sorted using
(if available) the best CL signature found in Coinbase.
If no CL signature is present yet, then the usual way is used (By using
Blockhash instead)
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
Test `feature_llmq_rotation.py` was updated to cover both rotated and
non-rotated quorums.
2 quorums are mined first to ensure Chainlock are working earlier.
Then dip_24 activation is replaced by v20 activation.
The only direct way to test this change is to make sure that all
expected quorums after v20 activation are properly formed.
Note: A `wait_for_chainlocked_block_all_nodes` is called between every
rotation cycle to ensure that Coinbase will use a different Chainlock
signature.
## Breaking Changes
Yes, quorum members will be calculated differently.
## 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 _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
We had forgotten to harden dip20 and dip24 activation
## What was done?
Hardened dip20 and dip24 activation
## How Has This Been Tested?
Hasn't yet; should do an assumevalid=0 reindex
## Breaking Changes
Hopefully none
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] 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: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Automated guix builds in CI when specifically requested
## What was done?
Any PR with the `build-guix` label added will automatically have the
Guix build ran and the hashes placed in the CI output to compare against
## How Has This Been Tested?
This PR
## 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
`cs_map_quorums` was introduced to protect `mapQuorumsCache` only. We
shouldn't hold it for too long or require it to be held in
`BuildQuorumFromCommitment`.
## What was done?
limit the scope of `cs_map_quorums`
## How Has This Been Tested?
build and run tests locally and in gitlab ci
## 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
Install of dash_hash will change once
https://github.com/dashpay/dash_hash/pull/17/ is merged
## What was done?
- Changed install instructions to match new install in dash_hash README
- Updated Dockerfile to install correctly
## How Has This Been Tested?
N/A
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
<!--- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
should fix ci failures like
https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/jobs/4261565118 in #5291
## What was done?
Use the exact dash_hash version/tag instead of simply using `master`.
Bumping `DASH_HASH_VERSION` invalidates docker cache.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Ran it in my gitlab ci
## 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
I think the logic in activate_by_name is broken
## What was done?
fix it
## How Has This Been Tested?
run 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
- [ ] 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
pls see individual commits
fixes an issue (reported by @strophy recently) where mixing wouldn't
start in a fresh new wallet
not 100% sure but
[99867eb](99867eb769)
might also fix#5350 reported by @splawik21 so this could also be a v19
backport candidate
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
mixing on testnet
## Breaking Changes
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`feature_pruning.py` is failing atm
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
run `feature_pruning.py` locally
gitian for this branch with `INTEGRATION_TESTS_ARGS` set to `--extended
--exclude feature_dbcrash --timeoutscale=4 --jobs=4`:
https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/pipelines/852044104
NOTE:
[`linux64_tsan-test`](https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/jobs/4197383660)
failed because tsan build binaries are super slow and we hit 30 minutes
timeout for 1 single test because of that. This is not an actual test
failure.
## 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
## What was done?
- Bumped version of `CbTx`. Added fields `bestCLHeightDiff`,
`bestCLSignature`
- Miner starting from v20 fork, includes best CL signature in `CbTx` (if
available) or null signature.
- All nodes should verify included CL signature before accepting the
block.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Basically, activated v20 on in the beginning of
`feature_llmq_chainlocks.py`
## Breaking Changes
Yes, new version of CbTx
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
gobject sync is broken after #5322
## What was done?
implement proper serialization
## How Has This Been Tested?
run dash-qt/dashd on testnet/mainnet
## Breaking Changes
n/a, fixes breaking changes introduced earlier
## 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
Functional tests in CI and locally often fails without a good reason
(pretty randomly)
## What was done?
It was re-implemented `get_recovered_sig` and updated `create_raw_tx`
for better selection/change output.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run functional times with bug amount of parrallel jobs:
```
test/functional/test_runner.py -j 20 feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py feature_llmq_is_cl_conflicts.py
```
Without these changes usually 2-3 instance fails.
With these changes all failures happened only for `p2p_addrv2_relay.py`
and `mempool_unbroadcast.py`. Beside feature_llmq_is_conflicts.py
improved stability of `interface_zmq_dash.py` also.
## Breaking Changes
No 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
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Invalid number of minimum members in comments for LLMQ_25_67
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Invalid number of minimum members in comments for LLMQ_25_67
## What was done?
- Replaced `67` with `17`
## How Has This Been Tested?
None
## Breaking Changes
None
## 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 _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
we failed to backport 13216 correctly in #4359
noticed this while reviewing/testing #5255
## What was done?
fix it
## How Has This Been Tested?
run qt with `-resetguisetting` and check info with and without the patch
on testnet for example (or tweak regtest params and test there)
## 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)_
