23812555b1 fix: possible deadlock during calculation of signals for historical blocks during re-index (Konstantin Akimov)
1087489fd4 feat: bury v20 deployment (Konstantin Akimov)
64cedb30bd feat: actually test something EHF unit tests (Konstantin Akimov)
762a808b8c chore: drop irrelevant bip9 code from feature_llmq_rotation.py (Konstantin Akimov)
7735631aad fix: remove v20 from test feature_llmq_evo as far as mn_rr used (Konstantin Akimov)
ca83b26815 fix: crash in CreditPool: it meant to check that DIP0003 is activated (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
V20 is activated on mainnet: time to bury it!
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/6186
## What was done?
Hard-fork v20 is buried and it requires to implement multiple fixes, simplifications, refactoring:
- some tests for EHF moved from functional tests to unit tests
- fixed crash in Credit Pool if DIP3 is not activated yet
- added a requirement for v20 activation for `CMNHFManager::GetSignalsStage`
- removed useless code from functional test feature_llmq_rotation
- renamed variables "v20" to "mn_rr" in feature_llmq_evo.py so far as actually used fork is mn_rr
## How Has This Been Tested?
Some unit and functional tests to succeed.
Done reindex (just in case):
src/qt/dash-qt -reindex -assumevalid=0
src/qt/dash-qt -reindex -assumevalid=0 -testnet
## Breaking Changes
N/A
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
ACK 23812555b1
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 23812555b1
Tree-SHA512: eec35745baa695f3f286d39b6a61fa0a9f34820b13d1dd4cfbd1efe707850283892c39bf7fe49c49c812e0c02465d64df11480b3f12aa7f21b59a71eeae7260e
f4ba2bb769 feat: enforce DIP0001 from first block on regtest and drop fDIP0001ActiveAtTip (Konstantin Akimov)
5fa64bc4f8 feat: put brr activation to height=1 (Konstantin Akimov)
593c6cff14 feat: instant activation dip-0008 on regtest on first block (Konstantin Akimov)
cfd7ea2bc3 feat: activate DIP0020 on regtest from block 1 (Konstantin Akimov)
d1676b0280 Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#22818: test: Activate all regtest softforks at height 1, unless overridden (merge-script)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Backport bitcoin#22818 which helped to activate all forks from block-1 at regtest.
Activate next dash's softforks at block 1:
- DIP-0001 (blocksize 2mb)
- DIP-0020 (opcodes)
- DIP-0008 (chainlocks)
- BRR (block reward reallocation)
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
All changes are relevant to RegTest only
## 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 f4ba2bb769
Tree-SHA512: 8d095365ff9e06ddcf47dbd457310ea2326998f0627d409651ab2fd35f6c1407cd3d2a23a4c636de359547782f4c43821944528229f3ea800cc65d3537595ea8
ffe33dfbd4c3b11e3475b022b6c1dd077613de79 chainparams: drop versionbits threshold to 90% for mainnnet and signet (Anthony Towns)
f054f6bcd2c2ce5fea84cf8681013f85a444e7ea versionbits: simplify state transitions (Anthony Towns)
55ac5f568a3b73d6f1ef4654617fb76e8bcbccdf versionbits: Add explicit NEVER_ACTIVE deployments (Anthony Towns)
dd07e6da48040dc7eae46bc7941db48d98a669fd fuzz: test versionbits delayed activation (Anthony Towns)
dd85d5411c1702c8ae259610fe55050ba212e21e tests: test versionbits delayed activation (Anthony Towns)
73d4a706393e6dbd6b6d6b6428f8d3233ac0a2d8 versionbits: Add support for delayed activation (Anthony Towns)
9e6b65f6fa205eee5c3b99343988adcb8d320460 tests: clean up versionbits test (Anthony Towns)
593274445004506c921d5d851361aefb3434d744 tests: test ComputeBlockVersion for all deployments (Anthony Towns)
63879f0a4760c0c0f784029849cb5d21ee088abb tests: pull ComputeBlockVersion test into its own function (Anthony Towns)
Pull request description:
BIP9-based implementation of "speedy trial" activation specification, see https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-March/018583.html
Edge cases are tested by fuzzing added in #21380.
ACKs for top commit:
instagibbs:
tACK ffe33dfbd4
jnewbery:
utACK ffe33dfbd4c3b11e3475b022b6c1dd077613de79
MarcoFalke:
review ACK ffe33dfbd4c3b11e3475b022b6c1dd077613de79 💈
achow101:
re-ACK ffe33dfbd4c3b11e3475b022b6c1dd077613de79
gmaxwell:
ACK ffe33dfbd4c3b11e3475b022b6c1dd077613de79
benthecarman:
ACK ffe33dfbd4c3b11e3475b022b6c1dd077613de79
Sjors:
ACK ffe33dfbd4c3b11e3475b022b6c1dd077613de79
jonatack:
Initial approach ACK ffe33dfbd4c3b11e3475b022b6c1dd077613de79 after a first pass of review, building and testing each commit, mostly looking at the changes and diffs. Will do a more high-level review iteration. A few minor comments follow to pick/choose/ignore.
ariard:
Code Review ACK ffe33df
Tree-SHA512: f79a7146b2450057ee92155cbbbcec12cd64334236d9239c6bd7d31b32eec145a9781c320f178da7b44ababdb8808b84d9d22a40e0851e229ba6d224e3be747c
fa1cd9e1ddc6918c3d600d36eadea71eebb242b6 test: Remove unused lock arg from BitcoinTestFramework.wait_until (MarcoFalke)
fad2794e93b4f5976e81793a4a63aa03a2c8c686 test: Rename wait until helper to wait_until_helper (MarcoFalke)
facb41bf1d1b7ee552c627f9829b4494b817ce28 test: Remove unused p2p_lock in VersionBitsWarningTest (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
This avoids confusion with the `wait_until` member functions, which should be preferred because they take the appropriate locks and scale the timeout appropriately on their own.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK fa1cd9e1ddc6918c3d600d36eadea71eebb242b6
hebasto:
ACK fa1cd9e1ddc6918c3d600d36eadea71eebb242b6, I have reviewed the code and it looks OK, I agree it can be merged.
Tree-SHA512: 319d400085606a4c738e314824037f72998e6657d8622b363726842aba968744f23c56d27275dfe506b8cbbb6e97fc39ca1d325db05d4d67df0e8b35f2244d5c
that's a result of:
contrib/devtools/copyright_header.py update ./
it is not scripted diff, because it works differentlly on my localhost and in CI:
CI doesn't want to use git commit date which is mocked to 30th Dec of 2023
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Should fix failures like
https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/jobs/6107697452
## What was done?
See inline comments
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run lots of `feature_governance.py` in parallel multiple times
## 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)_
---------
Co-authored-by: Konstantin Akimov <knstqq@gmail.com>
d841301010914203fb5ef02627c76fad99cb11f1 test: Add docstring to wait_until() in util.py to warn about its usage (Seleme Topuz)
1343c86c7cc1fc896696b3ed87c12039e4ef3a0c test: Update wait_until usage in tests not to use the one from utils (Seleme Topuz)
Pull request description:
Replace global (from [test_framework/util.py](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/test/functional/test_framework/util.py#L228)) `wait_until()` usages with the ones provided by `BitcoinTestFramework` and `P2PInterface` classes.
The motivation behind this change is that the `util.wait_until()` expects a timeout, timeout_factor and lock and it is not aware of the context of the test framework. `BitcoinTestFramework` offers a `wait_until()` which has an understandable amount of default `timeout` and a shared `timeout_factor`. Moreover, on top of these, `mininode.wait_until()` also has a shared lock.
closes#19080
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK d841301010914203fb5ef02627c76fad99cb11f1 🦆
kallewoof:
utACK d841301010914203fb5ef02627c76fad99cb11f1
Tree-SHA512: 81604f4cfa87fed98071a80e4afe940b3897fe65cf680a69619a93e97d45f25b313c12227de7040e19517fa9c003291b232f1b40b2567aba0148f22c23c47a88
dac7a111bdd3b0233d94cf68dae7a8bfc6ac9c64 refactor: test: use _ variable for unused loop counters (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This tiny PR substitutes Python loops in the form of `for x in range(N): ...` by `for _ in range(N): ...` where applicable. The idea is indicating to the reader that a block (or statement, in list comprehensions) is just repeated N times, and that the loop counter is not used in the body, hence using the throwaway variable. This is already done quite often in the current tests (see e.g. `$ git grep "for _ in range("`). Another alternative would be using `itertools.repeat` (according to Python core developer Raymond Hettinger it's [even faster](https://twitter.com/raymondh/status/1144527183341375488)), but that doesn't seem to be widespread in use and I'm not sure about a readability increase.
The only drawback I see is that whenever one wants to debug loop iterations, one would need to introduce a loop variable again. Reviewing this is basically a no-brainer, since tests would fail immediately if a a substitution has taken place on a loop where the variable is used.
Instances to replace were found by `$ git grep "for.*in range("` and manually checked.
ACKs for top commit:
darosior:
ACK dac7a111bdd3b0233d94cf68dae7a8bfc6ac9c64
instagibbs:
manual inspection ACK dac7a111bd
practicalswift:
ACK dac7a111bdd3b0233d94cf68dae7a8bfc6ac9c64 -- the updated code is easier to reason about since the throwaway nature of a variable is expressed explicitly (using the Pythonic `_` idiom) instead of implicitly. Explicit is better than implicit was we all know by now :)
Tree-SHA512: 5f43ded9ce14e5e00b3876ec445b90acda1842f813149ae7bafa93f3ac3d510bb778e2c701187fd2c73585e6b87797bb2d2987139bd1a9ba7d58775a59392406
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
we should not vote on triggers from the past
## What was done?
## 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 _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Addressed issues and comments from [PR
comment](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5469#discussion_r1317886678)
and [PR
comment](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5469#discussion_r1338704082)
`Params()` should be const; global variable `CMNHFManager` is a better
out-come.
## What was done?
The helpers and direct calls of `UpdateMNParams` for each block to
update non-constant member in `Params()` is not needed anymore. Instead
`CMNHFManager` takes cares about status of Signals for each block,
update them dynamically and save in evo db.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests.
## Breaking Changes
Changed rpc `getblockchaininfo`.
the field `ehf` changed meaning: it's now only a flag -1/0; but it is
introduced a new field `ehf_height` now that a height.
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
MNs don't really vote NO on triggers that do not match their local
candidates because:
1. they bail out too early when they see that they are not the payee
2. the hash for objects to vote NO on was picked incorrectly.
## What was done?
Moved voting out of `CreateGovernanceTrigger` and into its own
`VoteGovernanceTriggers`. Refactored related code to use `optional`
while at it, dropped useless/misleading `IsValid()` call. Added some
safety belts, logging, tests.
## 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
```
test/functional/feature_governance.py:205:59: F821 undefined name 'p0_amount'
test/functional/feature_governance.py:205:95: F821 undefined name 'p1_amount'
test/functional/feature_governance.py:205:131: F821 undefined name 'p2_amount'
```
## What was done?
add missing `self.`
## How Has This Been Tested?
run linter and `feature_governance.py`
## 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
Noticed a couple of things while I was trying to figure out if an
[issue](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5627#discussion_r1367153099)
@knst mentioned in #5627 could actually exist:
1. `GetPaymentsLimit()` won't work correctly with historical blocks rn.
We don't use it that way internally but it could be done via rpc and it
should provide correct results.
2. superblock params on regtest are too small to test them properly
3. because of (2) and a huge v20 activation window (comparing to sb
params) `feature_governance.py` doesn't test v20 switching states.
There's also no "sb on v20 activation block" test.
~NOTE: based on #5639 atm~
## What was done?
fix it, pls see individual commits
## 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
sb produced by sentinel:
>"DataString": ... \"payment_amounts\": \"20.00000000|20.00000000\", ...
>...
> "YesCount": 83,
sb produced by core:
>"DataString": ... \"payment_amounts\": \"20.00|20.00\", ...
> "YesCount": 13,
These 2 triggers are for the same block (900552), proposal hashes and
addresses are also the same but the difference in `payment_amounts`
format makes it look like a different trigger for core and this creates
a race.
## What was done?
Use `ValueFromAmount` instead of `FormatMoney` to avoid trimming
## How Has This Been Tested?
run 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 _(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
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)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Implementation of issue https://github.com/dashpay/dash-issues/issues/43
## What was done?
Masternode will try to create, sign and submit a Superblock (GovTrigger)
during the `nSuperblockMaturityWindow`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## 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
- [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>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
