1e62350ca20898189904a88dfef9ea11ddcd8626 refactor: Improve use of explicit keyword (Fabian Jahr)
c502a6dbfb854ca827a5a3925394f9e09d29b898 lint: Use c++17 std in cppcheck linter (Fabian Jahr)
Pull request description:
I found the `extended-lint-cppcheck` linter still uses `std=c++11` when reviewing #20471. The only difference in the output after this change is one line is missing:
```
src/script/descriptor.cpp:159:5: warning: Struct 'PubkeyProvider' has a constructor with 1 argument that is not explicit. [noExplicitConstructor]
```
After some digging, I am still not sure why this one is ignored with c++17 when 40 other`noExplicitConstructor` warnings were still appearing.
In the second commit, I fix these warnings, adding `explicit` where appropriate and adding fixes to ignore otherwise.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
cr ACK 1e62350ca20898189904a88dfef9ea11ddcd8626: patch looks correct!
MarcoFalke:
review ACK 1e62350ca20898189904a88dfef9ea11ddcd8626
Tree-SHA512: dff7b324429a57160e217cf38d9ddbb6e70c6cb3d3e3e0bd4013d88e07afc2292c3df94d0acf7122e9d486322821682ecf15c8f2724a78667764c05d47f89a12
fa40168ab3102b9ad850f967a0e7fa22dbfbd0c6 Remove unused bits from service flags enum (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Remove service bits that haven't been observed on the active network for years and won't ever be observed on the network with this meaning. Keeping this dead assignment in our source code forever doesn't add any value.
I somehow forgot to do this in commit fa0d0ff6e1bee60fde63724ae28a51aac5a94d4a.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK fa40168ab3102b9ad850f967a0e7fa22dbfbd0c6
practicalswift:
cr ACK fa40168ab3102b9ad850f967a0e7fa22dbfbd0c6
fanquake:
ACK fa40168ab3102b9ad850f967a0e7fa22dbfbd0c6
Tree-SHA512: 376e5ac05940493cf2209fea60515c843e978c4b476f2524f6bf7a37a646d237c3ddcf6c0fa23641f9ba550f625609703d9b51b4be631a7f2a90e1092b557232
fa8abdc9953e381715493b259908e246914793b0 rpc: Use FeeModes doc helper in estimatesmartfee (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Not sure why this doesn't use the doc helper, probably an oversight?
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK fa8abdc9953e381715493b259908e246914793b0
Tree-SHA512: 1f2dc8356e3476ddcf9cafafa7f9865ad95bed1e3067c0edab8e3c483e374bdbdbecc066167554b4a1b479e28f6a52c4ae6a75a70c67ee4e1ff4f3ba36b04001
6690adba08006739da0060eb4937126bdfa1181a Warn when binaries are built from a dirty branch. (Tyler Chambers)
Pull request description:
- Adjusted `--version` flag behavior in bitcoind and bitcoin-wallet to have the same behavior.
- Added `--version` flag to bitcoin-tx to match.
- Added functionality in gen-manpages.sh to error when attempting to generate man pages for binaries built from a dirty branch.
mitigates problem with issue #20412
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Tested ACK 6690adba08006739da0060eb4937126bdfa1181a
Tree-SHA512: b5ca509f1a57f66808c2bebc4b710ca00c6fec7b5ebd7eef58018e28e716f5f2358e36551b8a4df571bf3204baed565a297aeefb93990e7a99add502b97ee1b8
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Issues with rebasing non-conflicting pull requests on top of the updated
target branch:
1. It's ~impossible~ _annoying_ to run `gfd` _on each rebase_ to verify
that it was indeed a clean rebase ~if you did not pull the
original/previous version~ (it is possible actually, must use full
commit hash)
2. Github GUI is pretty much useless if a target branch update was huge
Because of (1) and (2) if a rebase was done in the middle of your review
you have to basically start your review from scratch which is super
annoying and should be avoided. Rebasing a conflicting PR or rebasing on
top of the same `HEAD` as before is ok.
cc @kittywhiskers @vijaydasmp @knst
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
40% smaller CI job artifacts. Should help with issues like
https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/jobs/4759700026 in #5493.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
https://gitlab.com/UdjinM6/dash/-/jobs/4773517599
## 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
Used to avoid the following error:
```
In file included from test/fuzz/addition_overflow.cpp:7:
In file included from ./test/fuzz/util.h:26:
In file included from ./test/util/setup_common.h:16:
In file included from ./txmempool.h:31:
In file included from /builds/dashpay/dash/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/include/boost/optional.hpp:15:
In file included from /builds/dashpay/dash/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/include/boost/optional/optional.hpp:47:
In file included from /builds/dashpay/dash/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/include/boost/type_traits/is_nothrow_move_assignable.hpp:16:
/builds/dashpay/dash/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/include/boost/type_traits/has_nothrow_assign.hpp:65:7: error: builtin __has_nothrow_assign is deprecated; use __is_nothrow_assignable instead [-Werror,-Wdeprecated-builtins]
BOOST_HAS_NOTHROW_ASSIGN(T)
^
/builds/dashpay/dash/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/include/boost/type_traits/intrinsics.hpp:205:43: note: expanded from macro 'BOOST_HAS_NOTHROW_ASSIGN'
^
/builds/dashpay/dash/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/include/boost/serialization/serialization.hpp:61:1: note: in instantiation of template class 'boost::has_nothrow_assign<unsigned int>' requested here
BOOST_STRONG_TYPEDEF(unsigned int, version_type)
^
/builds/dashpay/dash/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/include/boost/serialization/strong_typedef.hpp:42:57: note: expanded from macro 'BOOST_STRONG_TYPEDEF'
D& operator=(const D& rhs) BOOST_NOEXCEPT_IF(boost::has_nothrow_assign<T>::value) {t = rhs.t; return *this;} \
```
clang warnings are quite noisy and easily cause gitlab's logs
to spill over, preventing logging of dash-specific warnings and errors
from making it to the CI logs.
our dependencies mostly track upstream so regardless, we cannot
act upon those warnings, so it's better to just suppress them if they're
too noisy.
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Since v19, Evo nodes are paid 4x blocks in a row.
This needs to be reverted when MN Reward Reallocation activates.
## What was done?
Starting from MN Reward Reallocation activation, Evo nodes are paid one
block in a row (like regular masternodes).
In addition, `nConsecutivePayments` isn't incremented anymore for Evo
nodes.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_llmq_hpmn.py` with MN Reward Reallocation activation.
## 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
- [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: Konstantin Akimov <knstqq@gmail.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
It partially resolves issue https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/5471
Better unit tests are needed to validate changes in ProTx implementation
such as this PR: https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5463
## What was done?
- Invalid ProTx transactions are checked more strictly. The flag "tx is
failed" is not enough now for test to succeed, but error code should
matched with expected error.
- Duplicated implementations of tests for "valid" and "invalid
transaction" are changed to more general code.
- Added extra log output with tx ID for easier debug - to see which
exactly tx is failed in test
- Supported more by 256 txes in one json file
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit 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
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
LLMQContext uses RAII to initialize all members. Ensured that all
members always initialized correctly in proper order if LLMQContext
exists.
BlockAssembler, CChainState use too many agruments and they are making
wrong assumption that members of LLMQContext can be constructed and used
independently, but that's not true. Instead, let's pass LLMQContext
whenever possible.
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
https://github.com/dashpay/dash-issues/issues/52
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional test and introduce no breaking changes.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
- We want to enable use of the AWS-hosted GitHub Actions runners, now
that [corresponding
infra](https://github.com/dcginfra/tf-aws-gh-runner/pull/8/files#diff-ad98d33884a302f6c747dc6b326c6b3af3887f2ec25e0bd7a0395f10444818f3)
exists to deploy these runners
## What was done?
Add new labels and workflow dispatch button to allow runner testing
## How Has This Been Tested?
Pending testing in CI
## 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
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
We have plenty of block space. Having `fallbackfee` disabled by default
is needlessly annoying.
## What was done?
Bump `DEFAULT_FALLBACK_FEE` to `1000`, same as it is on `master`
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/wallet/wallet.h#L68
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, send txes on testnet
## Breaking Changes
should be none
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
RPC help for mempoolentry incorrectly called the "instantsend" field
"time". The "instantsend" and "unbroadcast" fields were also in a
different order than the actual response.
## What was done?
Changed "time" -> "instantsend" and flipped order of
"instantsend"/"unbroadcast"
## How Has This Been Tested?
Built and checked locally
## Breaking Changes
N/A
## 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)_
