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
## 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)_
## 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
0306d78cb49d1684cc96ba3512b582a1fdaf78cc Use getbalances in wallet_address_types tests (Jon Atack)
7eacdc5167c8db94df84e206db85817bc64e4921 Shift coverage from getunconfirmedbalance to getbalances in wallet_abandonconflict tests (Jon Atack)
3e6f7377f600e47e5e3d439fc5d6ccf3db210038 Improve getbalances coverage in wallet_balance tests (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
<strike>This PR updates several tests and then removes the `getunconfirmedbalance` RPC which was deprecated in facfb4111d14a3b06c46690a2cca7ca91cea8a96 a year ago.
Next steps: remove the deprecated `getwalletinfo` fields and the `getbalance` RPC in follow-ups, if there seems to be consensus on those removals.</strike>
Update:
`getunconfirmedbalance` RPC was deprecated in facfb4111d14a3b06c46690a2cca7ca91cea8a96 a year ago, but following the review comments below, this PR now only updates the test coverage to use `getbalances` while still leaving basic coverage for `getunconfirmedbalance` in wallet_balance.py.
That said, I've seen 3 regular contributors confused in the past 10 days by "DEPRECATED" warnings in the code that are not following the deprecation policy in [JSON-RPC-interface.md#versioning](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/JSON-RPC-interface.md#versioning).
ISTM these warnings should either be removed, or the calls deprecated (`-deprecatedrpc`), or the policy updated to describe these warnings as a pre-deprecation practice.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
utACK 0306d78cb
Tree-SHA512: 692e43e9bed5afa97d905740666e365f0b64e559e1c75a6a398236d9e943894e3477947fc11324f420a6feaffa0c0c1532aa983c50090ca39d06551399e6ddd1
fa4632c41714dfaa699bacc6a947d72668a4deef test: Move boost/stdlib includes last (MarcoFalke)
fa488f131fd4f5bab0d01376c5a5013306f1abcd scripted-diff: Bump copyright headers (MarcoFalke)
fac5c373006a9e4bcbb56843bb85f1aca4d87599 scripted-diff: Sort test includes (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
When writing tests, often includes need to be added or removed. Currently the list of includes is not sorted, so developers that write tests and have `clang-format` installed will either have an unrelated change (sorting) included in their commit or they will have to manually undo the sort.
This pull preempts both issues by just sorting all includes in one commit.
Please be aware that this is **NOT** a change to policy to enforce clang-format or any other developer guideline or process. Developers are free to use whatever tool they want, see also #18651.
Edit: Also includes a commit to bump the copyright headers, so that the touched files don't need to be touched again for that.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK fa4632c41714dfaa699bacc6a947d72668a4deef
jonatack:
ACK fa4632c41714dfaa, light review and sanity checks with gcc build and clang fuzz build
Tree-SHA512: 130a8d073a379ba556b1e64104d37c46b671425c0aef0ed725fd60156a95e8dc83fb6f0b5330b2f8152cf5daaf3983b4aca5e75812598f2626c39fd12b88b180
fa6c114ae604571435e8c4d25906a8b6d5b9984c test: Add sanitizer suppressions for AMD EPYC CPUs (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Currently the ci system only runs on intel cpus (and some arm devices), but it won't run on CPUs `Using the 'shani(1way,2way)' SHA256 implementation` (excerpt from debug log).
For reference, google cloud CPUs (which is what Cirrus CI uses) print `Using the 'sse4(1way),sse41(4way),avx2(8way)' SHA256 implementation`
The traceback I got:
```
crypto/sha256_shani.cpp:87:18: runtime error: unsigned integer overflow: 0 - 1 cannot be represented in type 'size_t' (aka 'unsigned long')
#0 0x55c0000e95ec in sha256_shani::Transform(unsigned int*, unsigned char const*, unsigned long) /root/bitcoin/ci/scratch/build/bitcoin-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/src/crypto/sha256_shani.cpp:87:18
#1 0x55bfffb926f8 in (anonymous namespace)::SelfTest() /root/bitcoin/ci/scratch/build/bitcoin-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/src/crypto/sha256.cpp:517:9
#2 0x55bfffb906ed in SHA256AutoDetect[abi:cxx11]() /root/bitcoin/ci/scratch/build/bitcoin-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/src/crypto/sha256.cpp:626:5
#3 0x55bfff87ab97 in BasicTestingSetup::BasicTestingSetup(std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > const&, std::vector<char const*, std::allocator<char const*> > const&) /root/bitcoin/ci/scratch/build/bitcoin-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/src/test/util/setup_common.cpp:104:5
#4 0x55bffe885877 in main /root/bitcoin/ci/scratch/build/bitcoin-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/src/qt/test/test_main.cpp:52:27
#5 0x7f20c3bf60b2 in __libc_start_main (/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6+0x270b2)
#6 0x55bffe7a5f6d in _start (/root/bitcoin/ci/scratch/build/bitcoin-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/src/qt/test/test_bitcoin-qt+0x1d00f6d)
SUMMARY: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: unsigned-integer-overflow crypto/sha256_shani.cpp:87:18 in
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Anyhow ACK fa6c114ae604571435e8c4d25906a8b6d5b9984c
Tree-SHA512: 968a1d28eedec58c337b1323862f583cb1bcd78c5f03396940b9ab53ded12f8c6652877909aba05ee5586532137418fd817ff979bd7bef6e07856094f9d7f9b1
## 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>
590bda79e876d9b959083105b8c7c41dd87706eb scripted-diff: Remove setup_clean_chain if default is not changed (Fabian Jahr)
98892f39e3d079c73bff7f2a5d5420fa95270497 doc: Improve setup_clean_chain documentation (Fabian Jahr)
Pull request description:
The first commit improves documentation on setup_clean_chain which is misunderstood quite frequently. Most importantly it fixes the TestShell docs which are simply incorrect.
The second commit removes the instances of `setup_clean_clain` in functional tests where it is not changing the default.
This used to be part of #19168 which also sought to rename`setup_clean_chain`.
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
ACK 590bda79e876d9b959083105b8c7c41dd87706eb
Tree-SHA512: a7881186e65d31160b8f84107fb185973b37c6e50f190a85c6e2906a13a7472bb4efa9440bd37fe0a9ac5cd2d1e8559870a7e4380632d9a249eca8980b945f3e
e6fe1c37d0a2f8037996dd80619d6c23ec028729 rpc: Improve avoidpartialspends and avoid_reuse documentation (Fabian Jahr)
8f073076b102b77897e5a025ae555baae3d1f671 wallet: Increase OUTPUT_GROUP_MAX_ENTRIES to 100 (Fabian Jahr)
Pull request description:
Follow-up to #17824.
This increases OUTPUT_GROUP_MAX_ENTRIES to 100 which means that OutputGroups will now be up to 100 outputs large, up from previously 10. The main motivation for this change is that during the PR review club on #17824 [several participants signaled](https://bitcoincore.reviews/17824.html#l-339) that 100 might be a better value here.
I think fees should be manageable for users but more importantly, users should know what they can expect when using the wallet with this configuration, so I also tried to clarify the documentation on `-avoidpartialspends` and `avoid_reuse` a bit. If there are other additional ways how or docs where users can be made aware of the potential consequences of using these parameters, please let me know. Another small upside is that [there seem to be a high number of batching transactions with 100 and 200 inputs](https://miro.medium.com/max/3628/1*sZ5eaBSbsJsHx-J9iztq2g.png)([source](https://medium.com/@hasufly/an-analysis-of-batching-in-bitcoin-9bdf81a394e0)) giving these transactions a bit of a larger anonymity set, although that is probably a very weak argument.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
ACK e6fe1c37d0
Xekyo:
retACK e6fe1c37d0a2f8037996dd80619d6c23ec028729
rajarshimaitra:
tACK `e6fe1c3`
achow101:
ACK e6fe1c37d0a2f8037996dd80619d6c23ec028729
glozow:
code review ACK e6fe1c37d0
Tree-SHA512: 79685c58bafa64ed8303b0ecd616fce50fc9a2b758aa79833e4ad9f15760e09ab60c007bc16ab4cbc4222e644cfd154f1fa494b0f3a5d86faede7af33a6f2826
fad0ae6bb8e10b5cb82a5ec014e59b5aafc85b5e doc: Rename fuzz seed_dir to corpus_dir (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
The fuzz corpus directory might contain hand-crafted seeds, but generally it is a set of test inputs. See also https://github.com/google/fuzzing/blob/master/docs/glossary.md#corpus
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
cr ACK fad0ae6bb8e10b5cb82a5ec014e59b5aafc85b5e: patch looks correct and "why not?" :)
fanquake:
ACK fad0ae6bb8e10b5cb82a5ec014e59b5aafc85b5e - did not test
Tree-SHA512: 38c952feb07aeeeb038b3261a12c824fab9ce5153d75f0ecf6d3f43db4f50998eeb2b14b11b7155f529189c93783fa2c11c81059021a04398c43f3505b31a2d4
ba7e17e073f833eccd4c7c111ae9058c3f123371 rpc, test: document {previous,next}blockhash as optional (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This PR updates the result help of the following RPCs w.r.t. the `previousblockhash` and `nextblockhash` fields:
- getblockheader
- getblock
Also adds trivial tests on genesis block (should not contain "previousblockhash") and best block (should not contain "nextblockhash").
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: ef42c5c773fc436e1b4a67be14e2532e800e1e30e45e54a57431c6abb714d2c069c70d40ea4012d549293b823a1973b3f569484b3273679683b28ed40abf46bb
c7437185589926ec8def2af6bede6a407b3d2e4a test: add further BIP37 size limit checks to p2p_filter.py (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This is a follow-up PR to #18628. In addition to the hash-functions limit test introduced with commit fa4c29bc1d, it adds checks for the following size limits as defined in [BIP37](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0037.mediawiki):
ad message type `filterload`:
> The filter itself is simply a bit field of arbitrary byte-aligned size. The maximum size is **36,000 bytes**.
ad message type `filteradd`:
> The data field must be smaller than or equal to **520 bytes** in size (the maximum size of any potentially matched object).
Also introduces new constants for the limits (or reuses the max script size constant in case for the `filteradd` limit).
Also fixes#18711 by changing the misbehaviour check on "filteradd without filterset" (introduced with #18544) below to also use the more commonly used `assert_debug_log` method.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK c7437185589926ec8def2af6bede6a407b3d2e4a
robot-visions:
ACK c7437185589926ec8def2af6bede6a407b3d2e4a
jonasschnelli:
utACK c7437185589926ec8def2af6bede6a407b3d2e4a. Seems to fix it: https://bitcoinbuilds.org/index.php?build=2524
Tree-SHA512: a03e7639263eb36a381922afb4e1d0ed2ae286f2ad2e7bbd922509a043ddf6cfd08747e01d54d29bfb8f54b66908f653974b9c347e4ca4f43332b586778893be
a9ecbdfcaa15499644d16e9c8ad2c63dfc45b37b test: add more inactive filter tests to p2p_filter.py (Sebastian Falbesoner)
5eae034996b340c19cebab9efb6c89d20fe051ef net: limit BIP37 filter lifespan (active between 'filterload' and 'filterclear') (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This PR fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18483. On the master branch, there is currently _always_ a BIP37 filter set for every peer: if not a specific filter is set through a `filterload` message, a default match-everything filter is instanciated and pointed to via the `CBloomFilter` default constructor; that happens both initially, when the containing structure `TxRelay` is constructed:
c0b389b335/src/net.h (L812)
and after a loaded filter is removed again through a `filterclear` message:
c0b389b335/src/net_processing.cpp (L3201)
The behaviour was introduced by commit 37c6389c5a (an intentional covert fix for [CVE-2013-5700](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18515), according to gmaxwell).
This default match-everything filter leads to some unintended side-effects:
1. `getdata` request for filtered blocks (i.e. type `MSG_FILTERED_BLOCK`) are always responded to with `merkleblock`s, even if no filter was set by the peer, see issue #18483 (strictly speaking, this is a violation of BIP37) c0b389b335/src/net_processing.cpp (L1504-L1507)
2. if a peer sends a `filteradd` message without having loaded a filter via `filterload` before, the intended increasing of the banscore never happens (triggered if `bad` is set to true, a few lines below) c0b389b335/src/net_processing.cpp (L3182-L3186)
This PR basically activates the `else`-branch code paths for all checks of `pfilter` again (on the master branch, they are dead code) by limiting the pointer's lifespan: instead of always having a filter set, the `pfilter` is only pointing to a `CBloomFilter`-instance after receiving a `filterload` message and the instance is destroyed again (and the pointer nullified) after receiving a `filterclear` message.
Here is a before/after comparison in behaviour:
| code part / scenario | master branch | PR branch |
| --------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------- |
| `getdata` processing for `MSG_FILTERED_BLOCK` | always responds with `merkleblock` | only responds if filter was set via `filterload` |
| `filteradd` processing, no filter was loaded | nothing | peer's banscore increases by 100 (i.e. disconnect) |
On the other code parts where `pfilter` is checked there is no change in the logic behaviour (except that `CBloomFilter::IsRelevantAndUpdate()` is unnecessarily called and immediately returned in the master branch).
Note that the default constructor of `CBloomFilter` is only used for deserializing the received `filterload` message and nowhere else. The PR also contains a functional test checking that sending `getdata` for filtered blocks is ignored by the node if no bloom filter is set.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
re-ACK a9ecbdfcaa, only change is in test code 🕙
Tree-SHA512: 1a656a6d74ccaf628e7fdca063ba63fbab2089e0b6d0a11be9bbd387c2ee6d3230706ff8ffc1a55711481df3d4547137dd7c9d9184d89eaa43ade4927792d0b6
cd543d9193ac1882c1b4a8a84e3ac7356a8b7ce9 test: check misbehavior more independently in p2p_filter.py (Danny Lee)
Pull request description:
This expands on #18672 in two ways:
- Check positive cases (`filterload` accepted, `filteradd` accepted) in addition to the negative cases added in #18672
- Address MarcoFalke 's [suggestion](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18672#discussion_r412101752) to successfully load a filter before testing `filteradd`
ACKs for top commit:
theStack:
re-ACK cd543d9193
Tree-SHA512: f82402f6287ccddf08b38b6432d5e2b2b2ef528802a981d04c24bac459022f732d9090d4849d72d3d1eb2c757161dcb18c4c036b6e11dc80114e9cd49f21c3bd
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
## What was done?
Renaming of all classes/variables/functions/rpcs from `hpmn` to `evo`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
All unit and func tests are passing.
Sync of Testnet.
## Breaking Changes
All protx RPCs ending with `_hpmn` were converted to `_evo`.
`_hpmn` RPCs are now deprecated.
Although, they can still be enabled by adding `-deprecatedrpc=hpmn`.
## 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
- [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: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Execute command when the best chainlock changes (`%s` in cmd is replaced
by chainlocked block hash). Same as `-blocknotify` but for chainlocks.
Let `-instantsendnotify` replace `%w` with wallet name like
`-walletnotify` does.
## What was done?
## 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
fab46b34f4b13abbb0af276c3fb548f25ccc28bd test: Fix restart node race (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
It is not allowed to start a node before it has been fully stopped. Otherwise it could lead to intermittent issues due to access issues (e.g. cookie file https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6409665024098304?command=ci#L4793)
Fix that by waiting for the node to fully stop.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
code review ACK fab46b34f4b13abbb0af276c3fb548f25ccc28bd
Tree-SHA512: 7605cac0573a7b04f05ff110d0131e8940d87f7baf6d698505ed16b363d4d15b1e552c5ffd1a187c8fe5639f7e265c3122734c85283275746e46bd789614fd21
fab48da908f3f81135b9163edf5011d1e5f6ef6e test: Fix intermittent wallet_multiwallet issue with got_loading_error (MarcoFalke)
fa8e15f7b75e35846b86e8627a3612e31eb22dcb test: pep8 wallet_multiwallet.py (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Failing the test after 10 iterations without a loading error is problematic because it may take 11 iterations to get a loading error.
Fix that by running until a loading error occurs, which should happen in almost all runs within the first 10 iterations.
ACKs for top commit:
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK fab48da908f3f81135b9163edf5011d1e5f6ef6e. This seems like a good workaround. I think more ideally think load and unload RPCs would not have racy status reporting (suggested previously https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19300#pullrequestreview-435362710 and
Tree-SHA512: 6b80b26d916276efe2a01af93bca7dbf71a3e67db9d3deb15175070719bf7d1325a1410d93e74c0316942e388faa2ba185dc9d3759c82d1c73c3c509b9997f05
fa918dd537fea775c19a590e5f9161bf51a5839b test: Use Popen.wait instead of RPC in assert_start_raises_init_error (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Using RPC (`wait_for_rpc_connection`) has several issue:
* It polls in a loop, which might be slow
* It tries to read the RPC cookie file, which might not be present, thus leading to intermittent issues
Fix both by using `Popen.wait`
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK ~~faf7b05be9c86ee61c39e5314511fe2410128a6b~~ fa918dd537fea775c19a590e5f9161bf51a5839b
darosior:
ACK fa918dd537fea775c19a590e5f9161bf51a5839b
Tree-SHA512: 5368ad0d0ea2deb0af9582a42667c9290efe8f2705f37a236afc2c7908b04265ab342e2dd356a57156e99389f4a27ab6da9fa7bf9161fb7568240aa005e693b9
## 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
NOTE: There is slight difference with original backport due to future changes
in bitcoin#19272, bitcoin#19763 - otherwise functional test p2p_addr_relay.py fails
fa1da3d4bfc0511a89f5b19d5a4d89e55ff7ccde test: Add basic addr relay test (MarcoFalke)
fa1793c1c44a3f75a09f9c636467b8274c541bdd net: Pass connman const when relaying address (MarcoFalke)
fa47a0b003f53708b6d5df1ed4e7f8a7c68aa3ac net: Make addr relay mockable (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
As usual:
* Switch to std::chrono time to be type-safe and mockable
* Add basic test that relies on mocktime to add code coverage
ACKs for top commit:
naumenkogs:
utACK fa1da3d
promag:
ACK fa1da3d4bfc0511a89f5b19d5a4d89e55ff7ccde (fabe56e44b6f683e24e37246a7a8851190947cb3 before https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18454#issuecomment-607866453), fa5bf23d527a450e72c2bf13d013e5393b664ca3 was dropped since last review.
Tree-SHA512: 0552bf8fcbe375baa3cab62acd8c23b2994efa47daff818ad1116d0ffaa0b9e520dc1bca2bbc68369b25584e85e54861fe6fd0968de4f503b95439c099df9bd7
fixup - see #19272, #19763
faede1b293354560317b67f0b4e6874dcac6ef41 test: Properly raise FailedToStartError when rpc shutdown before warmup finished (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Should fix issues such as https://travis-ci.org/github/bitcoin/bitcoin/jobs/671910152#L7034
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: ac659f29c5ec91985c916b734e24911cbf4e2c5c4b1f1891a7e6c2d2511ec285167550fb03848eee4a7a3cbc9f8cdb0c766f4e881d9e44368c7415d007006368
7a2ecf16df938dd95d3130a46082def7a02338eb Wallet: Change IsMine check in CWallet::DelAddressBook from assert to failure (Luke Dashjr)
2952c46b923042f2de801f319e03ed5c4c4eb735 Wallet: Replace CAddressBookData.name with GetLabel() method (Luke Dashjr)
d7092c392e10889cd7a080b3d22ed6446a59b87a QA: Test that change doesn't turn into non-change when spent in an avoid-reuse wallet (Luke Dashjr)
Pull request description:
Follow-up to #18192, not strictly necessary for 0.20
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
re-ACK 7a2ecf16df, only change is adding an assert_equal in the test 🔰
jnewbery:
utACK 7a2ecf16df938dd95d3130a46082def7a02338eb
Tree-SHA512: e0933ee40f705b751697dc27249e1868ed4874254b174ebdd0a7150125d8c818402e66df2371718c7eeb90e67ee2317215fb260aa9b9d7b9b45ee436de2988ff
It's highly unlikely the test will ever deal with chains with >4500
blocks, so only the subset of the subsidy logic that is needed to
validate `gettxoutsetinfo` output has been included
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
There's one type of output that potentially can be useful for bloom
filter.
It's follow-up for TODO for dashpay/dash#4857.
Asset Lock transactions have:
- standard inputs (covered by regular bloom filter implementation)
- standard outputs (covered by regular bloom filter implementation)
- special outputs that have public key to proof owing this credits on
platform and claiming it.
Asset Unlock transactions have:
- no inputs (no need bloom)
- standard outputs (covered by regular bloom filter implementation)
So far as there's only one special case, let's have this data in the
bloom filter because it can potentially help to show information such as
"Deposit to platform" on mobile clients.
## What was done?
- added special case for Asset Lock transactions for bloom filter
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests. Doesn't actually tested how bloom filter
works.
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
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
## 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>
