## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
RPC `getassetunlockstatuses` is now accepting an extra optional
parameter `height`.
When a valid `height` is passed, then the RPC returns the status of
AssetUnlock indexes up to this specific block. (Requested by Platform
team)
## What was done?
Note that in order to avoid cases that can lead to deterministic result,
when `height` is passed, then the only `chainlocked` and `unknown`
outcomes are possible.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_asset_locks.py` was updated.
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: Konstantin Akimov <knstqq@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
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
Running 3 nodes on RegTest as platform does uses do not let to create
`llmq_test_instantsend` quorum:
```
1. switch to `llmq_test_instantsend`:
+ self.extra_args = [["-llmqtestinstantsenddip0024=llmq_test_instantsend"]] * 5
2. removed cycle-quorum related code:
- self.move_to_next_cycle()
- self.log.info("Cycle H height:" + str(self.nodes[0].getblockcount()))
- self.move_to_next_cycle()
- self.log.info("Cycle H+C height:" + str(self.nodes[0].getblockcount()))
- self.move_to_next_cycle()
- self.log.info("Cycle H+2C height:" + str(self.nodes[0].getblockcount()))
-
- self.mine_cycle_quorum(llmq_type_name='llmq_test_dip0024', llmq_type=103)
3. added new quorum:
+ self.mine_quorum(llmq_type_name='llmq_test_instantsend', llmq_type=104)
and eventually it stucked, no quorum happens
2024-01-13T19:18:49.317000Z TestFramework (INFO): Expected quorum_0 at:984
2024-01-13T19:18:49.317000Z TestFramework (INFO): Expected quorum_0 hash:6788e18f0235a5c85f3d3c6233fe132a80e74a2912256db3ad876a8ebf026048
2024-01-13T19:18:49.317000Z TestFramework (INFO): quorumIndex 0: Waiting for phase 1 (init)
<frozen>
```
## What was done?
Updated condition to enable "llmq_test_instantsend":
- it is RegTest and DIP0024 is not active
- it is RegTest, DIP0024 is active, and specified as
`llmqTypeDIP0024InstantSend`
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit and functional tests.
Beside that functional test feature_asset_locks.py now uses this quorum
for instant send and that's an arrow that hit 2 birds: we have test for
command line option `-llmqtestinstantsenddip0024` and code of
feature_asset_locks.py is simplified.
## Breaking Changes
yes, that's a bugfix that fix quorum `llmq_test_instantsend` absentance
on regtest after dip-0024 activation.
## 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)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Asset Unlock tx uses platform's quorum on devnets, testnet, mainnet, but
still quorum type "Test (100)" on Reg Tests
That's part II PR, prior work is here:
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5618
## What was done?
- Removed `consensus.llmqTypeAssetLocks` which has been kept only for
RegTest - use `consensus.llmqTypePlatform` instead.
- Functional test `feature_asset_locks.py` uses `llmq_type_test = 106`
instead `llmq_type_test = 100` for asset unlock tx
- there's 4 MNs + 3 evo nodes instead 3 MNs as before: evo nodes
requires to have IS to be active
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests
## Breaking Changes
Asset Unlock tx uses correct quorum "106 llmq_test_platform" on reg test
instead "100 llmq_test"
## 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
Platform in the scope of credit withdrawals, need a way to get the
status of an Asset Unlock by index.
## What was done?
A new RPC was created `getassetunlockchainlocks` that accepts Asset
Unlock indexes array as parameter and return corresponding status for
each index.
The possible outcomes per each index are:
- `chainlocked`: If the Asset Unlock index is mined on a Chainlocked
block.
- `mined`: If no Chainlock information is available, and the Asset
Unlock index is mined.
- `mempooled`: If the Asset Unlock index is in the mempool.
- `unknown`: If none of the above are valid.
Note: This RPC is whitelisted for the Platform RPC user.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Inserted on `feature_asset_locks.py` covering cases where Asset Unlock
txs are in mempool, mined and not present.
## Breaking Changes
no
## 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)_
---------
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Konstantin Akimov <knstqq@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
## 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
Currently, on functional tests v20 activates at height 1440 which is
later than needed.
## What was done?
Reduced the window size of v20 from 480 to 400 which activates v20 at
1200.
Adjusted tests to this change.
Note regarding the window analysis for MN payments in
`feature_llmq_evo.py` (reduced from 256 to 48 blocks):
48 window is enough to analyse 4 MNs and 5 EvoNodes (Weighted count=24)
On my machine using develop:
`python3 feature_llmq_rotation.py 145.45s user 30.00s system 68% cpu
4:16.93 total`
With this PR:
`python3 feature_llmq_rotation.py 119.26s user 24.61s system 62% cpu
3:50.89 total`
## How Has This Been Tested?
all tests
## Breaking Changes
no
## 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
The bug was introduced in the original PR #5026 and refactored later
(which is good actually cause we shouldn't mix refactoring and
bug-fixing :) )
## What was done?
fix conditions, add tests
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_asset_locks.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)_
Implementation EHF mechanism, part 4. Previous changes are:
- https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/4577
- https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5505
- https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5469
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently MN_RR is activated automatically by soft-fork activation after
v20 is activated.
It is not flexible enough, because platform may not be released by that
time yet or in opposite it can be too long to wait.
Also, any signal of EHF requires manual actions from MN owners to sign
EHF signal - it is automated here.
## What was done?
New spork `SPORK_24_MN_RR_READY`; new EHF manager that sign EHF signals
semi-automatically without manual actions; and send transaction with EHF
signal when signal is signed to network.
Updated rpc `getblockchaininfo` to return information about of EHF
activated forks.
Fixed function `IsTxSafeForMining` in chainlock's handler to skip
transactions without inputs (empty `vin`).
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests. Some tests have been updated due to new way
of MN_RR activation: `feature_asset_locks.py`, `feature_mnehf.py`,
`feature_llmq_evo.py` and unit test `block_reward_reallocation_tests`.
## Breaking Changes
New way of MN_RR activation.
## 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>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Calculation of `platformReward` should ignore fees and rely only on
Block subsidy.
cc @QuantumExplorer
## What was done?
From now on, the following formula is applied:
```
blockReward = blockSubsidy + feeReward
masternodeReward = masternodeShare(blockSubsidy)
platformReward = platformShare(masternodeReward)
masternodeReward += masternodeShare(feeReward)
```
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
`plaftormReward` differs in networks where `mn_rr` is already active
## 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
- [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
Currently, the `nSubsidyBase` calculation relies on difficulty. This
leads to variable Block Subsidity.
When Platform will be live, it would constantly require blocks
difficulty in order to calculate the `platformReward` (which relies on
Block Subsidy)
cc @QuantumExplorer
## What was done?
Starting from v20 activation, `nSubsidyBase` will no longer rely on
difficulty and will be constant to 5.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
Block rewards will differ.
## 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)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Fixed a problem forgotten in #5588 in feature_asset_locks.py.
## What was done?
Avoid floating operations when calculating `coinbasevalue`
## 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)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
avoid potential discrepancies in block reward calculations
## What was done?
use integers (int64_t) only when dealing with block rewards, no
float/double
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests
## Breaking Changes
might fork off on devnets that use previous version
## 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
The block reward calculation logic in `SetTarget` doesn't work on
superblocks.
## What was done?
Move `CreditPoolDiff` checks out of `ProcessSpecialTxsInBlock` to use
correct block reward.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests
## Breaking Changes
n/a, sb blocks should now be processed correctly, non-sb blocks
shouldn't be 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
Implementation of accepted proposal:
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/TREASURY-REALLOCATION-60-20-20
## What was done?
Once Masternode Reward Location Reallocation activates:
- Treasury is bumped to 20% of block subsidy.
- Block reward shares are immediately set to 75% for MN and 25% miners.
(Previous reallocation periods are dropped)
MN reward share should be 75% of block reward in order to represent 60%
of the block subsidy. (according to the proposal)
- `governancebudget` is returned from `getgovernanceinfo` RPC.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`block_reward_reallocation_tests`
## 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
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Move funds from the coinbase, into the Asset Lock Pool. This is to incentivize MNs to upgrade to platform, because only MNs running platform will get these migrated rewards
## What was done?
- remove dependency of Asset Lock txes on CCreditPool
- new case for functional tests of Asset Locks - more than one output
for Asset Lock tx.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests
## Breaking Changes
Slightly changes behaviour of TxMempool. Tx can be accepted in mempool
even if Asset Unlock transaction with same index is already mined. But
final consensus rules are same.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
By design we can have more and more and more gaps in indexes list so far as
we can not re-sign expired transaction of asset-unlock. CRangesList is protected from this situation
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Bad naming is noticed in https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5026 by
thephez
## What was done?
Renamed `assetLockedAmount` in CbTx to `creditPoolBalance`
Renamed also some local variables and functions to make it matched also.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run functional/unit tests - succeed
Called python's rpc binding `node.getblock(block_hash)['cbTx']`:
Got this result:
```
{'version': 3, 'height': 1556, 'merkleRootMNList': '978b2b4d1b884de62799b9eaee75c7812fea59f98f80d5ff9c963b0f0f195e14', 'merkleRootQuorums': 'bc7a34eb114f4e4bf38a11080b5d8ac41bdb36dd41e17467bae23c94ba06b013', 'bestCLHeightDiff': 0, 'bestCLSignature': '000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000', 'creditPoolBalance': Decimal('7.00141421')}
```
## Breaking Changes
Renamed `assetLockedAmount` in CbTx to `creditPoolBalance`. @shumkov be
informed
## 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
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
This is an implementation of DIP0027 "Credit Asset Locks".
It's a mechanism to fluidly exchange between Dash and credits.
## What was done?
This pull request includes:
- Asset Lock transaction
- Asset Unlock transaction (withdrawal)
- Credit Pool in coinbase
- Unit tests for Asset Lock/Unlock tx
- New functional test `feature_asset_locks.py`
RPC: currently locked amount (credit pool) is available through rpc call
`getblock`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
There added new unit tests for basic checks of transaction validity
(asset lock/unlock).
Also added new functional test "feature_asset_locks.py" that cover
typical cases, but not all corner cases yet.
## Breaking Changes
This feature should be activated as hard-fork because:
- It adds 2 new special transaction and one of them [asset unlock tx]
requires update consensus rulels
- It adds new data in coinbase tx (credit pool)
## 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
**To release DIP 0027**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
