9b85a5e2f7e003ca8621feaac9bdd304d19081b4 tests: Test for dumpwallet lock order issue (Andrew Chow)
25d99e6511d8c43b2025a89bcd8295de755346a7 Reorder dumpwallet so that cs_main functions go first (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
When a wallet is loaded which has an unconfirmed transaction in the mempool, it will end up establishing the lock order of cs_wallet -> cs_main -> cs_KeyStore. If `dumpwallet` is used on this wallet, then a lock order of cs_wallet -> cs_KeyStore -> cs_main will be used, which causes a lock order assertion. This PR fixes this by reordering `dumpwallet` and `GetKeyBirthTimes` (only used by `dumpwallet`). Specifically, in both functions, the function calls which lock cs_main are done prior to locking cs_KeyStore. This avoids the lock order issue.
Additionally, I have added a test case to `wallet_dump.py`. Of course testing this requires `--enable-debug`.
Fixes#22489
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
review ACK 9b85a5e2f7e003ca8621feaac9bdd304d19081b4 🎰
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 9b85a5e2f7e003ca8621feaac9bdd304d19081b4. Nice to reduce lock scope, and good test!
prayank23:
tACK 9b85a5e2f7
lsilva01:
Tested ACK 9b85a5e2f7 under the same conditions reported in issue #22489 and the `dumpwallet` command completed successfully.
Tree-SHA512: d370a8f415ad64ee6a538ff419155837bcdbb167e3831b06572562289239028c6b46d80b23d227286afe875d9351f3377574ed831549ea426fb926af0e19c755
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Platform (in the scope of Withdrawals) need to be aware if a tx isn't in
mempool when requesting status of a tx using RPC `gettxchainlocks`.
cc @markin-io
## What was done?
- mempool is passed to `GetTransaction` and saving the result for
checking latter.
- If the returned tx_ref is nullptr, then the RPC returns null for the
corresponding tx in the array.
Example:
`tx1` is mined and chainlocked, `tx2` is in mempool and `tx3` doesn't
exist.
The result now is:
`[
{
"height": 830,
"chainlock": false,
"mempool": true
},
{
"height": -1,
"chainlock": false,
"mempool": true
},
{
"height": -1,
"chainlock": false,
"mempool": false
}
]`
## 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: Konstantin Akimov <knstqq@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## 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
old mode 100644
new mode 100755
## What was done?
`chmod +x test/functional/*.py`
## How Has This Been Tested?
can now run these test directly e.g. `./test/functional/rpc_quorum.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
`instantlock` and `chainlock` are broken in `getspecialtxes`
kudos to @thephez for finding the issue
## What was done?
pass the hash and also rename the variable to self-describing
## How Has This Been Tested?
run `getspecialtxes` on a node with and without the patch
## Breaking Changes
`instantlock` and `chainlock` will show actual values and not just
`false` all the time now (not sure if that qualifies for "breaking"
though)
## 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
Once Platform is live, there could be an edge case where the CL could
arrive to an EvoNode faster through Platform quorum than regular P2P
propagation.
## What was done?
This PR introduces a new RPC `submitchainlock` with the following 3
mandatory parameters:
- `blockHash`, `signature` and `height`.
Besides some basic tests:
- If the block is unknown then the RPC returns an error (could happen if
the node is stucked)
- If the signature is not verified then the RPC return an error.
- If the node already has this CL, the RPC returns true.
- If the node doesn't have this CL, it inserts it, broadcast it through
the inv system and return true.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_llmq_chainlocks.py` was modified with the following scenario:
1. node0 is isolated from the rest of the network
2. node1 mines a new block and waits for CL
3. Make sure node0 doesn't know the new block/CL (by checking
`getbestchainlock()`)
4. CL is submitted via the new RPC on node0
5. checking `getbestchainlock()` and make sure the CL was processed +
'known_block' is false
6. reconnect node0
## 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: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
e4356f6a6c18e5027a064a4d3a5deda27985f584 Testcase for wallet issue with orphaned rewards. (Daniel Kraft)
Pull request description:
This adds a new test case demonstrating the wallet issue when block rewards are orphaned (#14148).
ACKs for top commit:
LarryRuane:
ACK e4356f6a6c18e5027a064a4d3a5deda27985f584
leonardojobim:
reACK e4356f6a6c .
Tree-SHA512: e9a2310ee1b3d52cfa302f431ed3d272bbc1b9195439ff318d9eb1006c0b28968dbe840e1600b6ff185e5d7ea57e4dcc837cef16051b5537445e10bc363b8c22
ff44cae279bef7997f76db18deb1e41b39f05cb6 test: Change feature_config_args.py not to rely on strange regtest=0 behavior (Russell Yanofsky)
Pull request description:
Update test to simply generate a normal mainnet configuration file instead of using a crazy setup where a regtest=1 config file using an includeconf in the [regtest] section includes another config file that specifies regtest=0, retroactively switching the network to mainnet.
This setup was fragile and only worked because the triggered InitError happened early enough that none of the ignored [regtest] options mattered (only affecting log output).
This change was originally made as part of #17493
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: 3f77305454f04438493dfc2abd78a00434b30869454d1c3f54587b9c1f63239c49c90fb3b4d3a777ad130f2184e0f2dac87cee4cd23c50f1b3496a375943da01
3ddbf22ed179a2db733af4b521bec5d2b13ebf4b util: Disallow negative mocktime (MarcoFalke)
f5f2f9716885e7548809e77f46b493c896a019bf net: Avoid UBSan warning in ProcessMessage(...) (practicalswift)
Pull request description:
Avoid UBSan warning in `ProcessMessage(...)`.
Context: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20380#issuecomment-770427182 (thanks Crypt-iQ!)
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
re-ACK 3ddbf22ed179a2db733af4b521bec5d2b13ebf4b only change is adding patch written by me
ajtowns:
ACK 3ddbf22ed179a2db733af4b521bec5d2b13ebf4b -- code review only
Tree-SHA512: e8d7af0457ca86872b75a4e406c0a93aafd841c2962e244e147e748cc7ca118c56be0fdafe53765f4b291410030b2c3cc8f76f733b37a955d34fc885ab6037b9
ab9c34237ab7b056394e0bd1f7cb131ffd95754c release: remove gitian (fanquake)
Pull request description:
Note that this doesn't yet touch any glibc back compat related code.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK ab9c34237ab7b056394e0bd1f7cb131ffd95754c
Tree-SHA512: 8e2fe3ec1097f54bb11ab9136b43818d90eab5dbb0a663ad6a552966ada4bdb49cc12ff4e66f0ec0ec5400bda5c81f3a3ce70a9ebb6fe1e0db612da9f00a51a7
e80259f1976545e4f1ab6a420644be0c32261773 Additionally treat Tx.nVersion as unsigned in joinpsbts (Matt Corallo)
970de70bdd3542e75b73c79b06f143168c361494 Dump transaction version as an unsigned integer in RPC/TxToUniv (Matt Corallo)
Pull request description:
Consensus-wise we already treat it as an unsigned integer (the
only rules around it are in CSV/locktime handling), but changing
the underlying data type means touching consensus code for a
simple cleanup change, which isn't really worth it.
See-also, https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/pull/299
ACKs for top commit:
sipa:
ACK e80259f1976545e4f1ab6a420644be0c32261773
practicalswift:
ACK e80259f1976545e4f1ab6a420644be0c32261773
ajtowns:
ACK e80259f1976545e4f1ab6a420644be0c32261773 code review -- checked all other uses of tx.nVersion treat it as unsigned (except for policy.cpp:IsStandard anyway), so looks good.
naumenkogs:
ACK e80259f
Tree-SHA512: 6760a2c77e24e9e1f79a336ca925f9bbca3a827ce02003c71d7f214b82ed3dea13fa7d9f87df9b9445cd58dff8b44a15571d821c876f22f8e5a372a014c9976b
60ed33904cf974e8f3c1b95392a23db1fe2d4a98 tests: implement base58_decode (10xcryptodev)
Pull request description:
implements TODO: def base58_decode
ACKs for top commit:
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 60ed33904cf974e8f3c1b95392a23db1fe2d4a98. Just suggested changes since last review. Thank you for taking suggestions!
Tree-SHA512: b3c06b4df041a6d88033cd077a093813a688e42d0b9aa777c715e5fd69cfba7b1bf984428bd98417d3c15232d3d48bc9c163317564f9e1d562db6611c21e2c10
e66870c5a4c2adbd30dca67d409fd5cd98697587 zmq: Append address to notify log output (nthumann)
241803da211265444e65f254f24dd184f2457fa9 test: Add zmq test to support multiple interfaces (nthumann)
a0b2e5cb6aa8db0563fac7d67a949b9baefe3a25 doc: Add release notes to support multiple interfaces (nthumann)
b1c3f180ecb63f3960506d202feebaa4271058ae doc: Adjust ZMQ usage to support multiple interfaces (nthumann)
347c94f551c3f144c44e00373e4dd61ff6d908b7 zmq: Add support to listen on multiple interfaces (Nicolas Thumann)
Pull request description:
This PR adds support for ZeroMQ to listen on multiple interfaces, just like the RPC server.
Currently, if you specify more than one e.g. `zmqpubhashblock` paramter, only the first one will be used. Therefore a user may be forced to listen on all interfaces (e.g. `zmqpubhashblock=0.0.0.0:28332`), which can result in an increased attack surface.
With this PR a user can specify multiple interfaces to listen on, e.g.
`-zmqpubhashblock=tcp://127.0.0.1:28332 -zmqpubhashblock=tcp://192.168.1.123:28332`.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK e66870c5a4c2adbd30dca67d409fd5cd98697587
instagibbs:
reACK e66870c5a4
Tree-SHA512: f38ab4a6ff00dc821e5f4842508cefadb701e70bb3893992c1b32049be20247c8aa9476a1f886050c5f17fe7f2ce99ee30193ce2c81a7482a5a51f8fc22300c7
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
The test is a bit broken and incomplete, some testing scenarios aren't
realistic
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
run it
## Breaking Changes
n/a, tests only
## 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)_
4dca7d0a98 appveyor: Enable multiwallet test (Chun Kuan Lee)
Pull request description:
Based on #14320
This PR enable multiwallet test on appveyor. Also re-enable symlink tests on Windows which is available after Windows Vista.
I disable these tests in #13964 because I suppose that Windows does not support symlink, but I was wrong.
Tree-SHA512: 852cd4dedf36ec9c34aff8926cb34e6a560aea0bb9170c7a2264fc292dbb605622d561568d8df39aeb90d3d2bb700901d218ea7e7c5e21d84827c40d6370b369
92bcd70808b9cac56b184903aa6d37baf9641b37 [wallet] allow transaction without change if keypool is empty (Sjors Provoost)
709f8685ac37510aa145ac259753583c82280038 [wallet] CreateTransaction: simplify change address check (Sjors Provoost)
5efc25f9638866941028454cfa9bae27f1519cb4 [wallet] translate "Keypool ran out" message (Sjors Provoost)
Pull request description:
Extracted from #16944
First this PR simplifies the check when generating a change address, by dropping `CanGetAddresses` and just letting `reservedest.GetReservedDestination` do this check.
Second, when the keypool is empty, instead of immediately giving up, we create a dummy change address and pass that to coin selection. If we didn't need the change address (e.g. when spending the entire balance), then it's all good. If we did need a change address, we throw the original error.
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
Code review ACK 92bcd70808b9cac56b184903aa6d37baf9641b37
jonasschnelli:
utACK 92bcd70808b9cac56b184903aa6d37baf9641b37
achow101:
ACK 92bcd70808b9cac56b184903aa6d37baf9641b37
meshcollider:
Code review ACK 92bcd70808b9cac56b184903aa6d37baf9641b37
Tree-SHA512: 07b8c8251f57061c58a85ebf0359be63583c23bac7a2c4cefdc14820c0cdebcc90a2bb218e5ede0db11d1e204cda149e056dfd18614642070b3d56efe2735006
34c80d9eee7d21755f2bb80f7c97fd30d2c7b656 test: Add option to git-subtree-check to do full check, add help (Wladimir J. van der Laan)
Pull request description:
This adds a brief help text to `git-subtree-check.sh` and adds an option to do a full remote check instead of having two different code paths with a successful exit status. Also make it explicit that the CI is not doing this.
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
tested ACK 34c80d9eee7d21755f2bb80f7c97fd30d2c7b656
Tree-SHA512: 20f672fd3b3c1d633eccf9998fdd738194cdd7d10cc206691f2dcc28bbbf8187b8d06b87814f875a06145b179f5ca1f4f4f9922972be72759cf5ac6e0c11abd1
a4a3fc4cd2e6f53cdffcc2962fd152a4e40c7413 doc: improve subtree check instructions (Sjors Provoost)
Pull request description:
Running `git-subtree-check.sh` requires adding the subtree repository as a remote. I learned that several years ago and then forgot again.
This PR also improves the error message if the subtree commit can't be found.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK a4a3fc4cd2e6f53cdffcc2962fd152a4e40c7413
fanquake:
ACK a4a3fc4cd2e6f53cdffcc2962fd152a4e40c7413 - this looks ok.
Tree-SHA512: 959bd923726c172d17f9f97f8a56988bf2df5a94d3131e5152a66150b941394cee9e82fdc6b86e09c0ba91d123a496599f07ca454212168d8d301738394c12c8
487aff421 Check subtree consistency in Travis (Pieter Wuille)
e1d0cc23a Improve git-subtree-check.sh (Pieter Wuille)
Pull request description:
Apparently many of our subtrees get modified by PRs in this repository, without getting noticed.
To improve upon this:
* Make git-subtree-check.sh capable of doing a weaker consistency check (that doesn't need access to external repositories), but which should be sufficient to detect unintended changes. It can be fooled by a fake subtree merge commit, but that would hopefully be obvious to reviewers.
* Make Travis invoke this subtree check for each of our subtrees.
Note that Travis is currently expected to fail on this PR, as 2 out of 4 subtrees (`src/secp156k1` and `src/univalue` have been modified directly in master).
Tree-SHA512: 465b680392d3daf38a8c1dda77d6f74b1d1c23324c378774777fb95aa673e119a8f7e3ccc124e41d97b5ac8975f3d79f3015797d2d309666582394364917ec4e
facef3d4131f9980a4516282f11731361559509c doc: Explain that anyone can work on good first issues, move text to CONTRIBUTING.md (MarcoFalke)
fae2fb2a196ee864e9a13fffc24a0279cd5d17e6 doc: Expand section on Getting Started (MarcoFalke)
100000d1b2c2e38d7a14a31b0af79e0e4316b04c doc: Add headings to CONTRIBUTING.md (MarcoFalke)
fab893e0caf510d4836a20194892ef9c71426c51 doc: Fix unrelated typos reported by codespell (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Some random doc changes:
* Add sections to docs, so that they can be linked to
* Explain that anyone (even maintainers) are allowed to work on good first issues
* Expand section on Getting Started slightly
ACKs for top commit:
hebasto:
ACK facef3d4131f9980a4516282f11731361559509c
fanquake:
ACK facef3d4131f9980a4516282f11731361559509c
Tree-SHA512: 8998e273a76dbf4ca77e79374c14efe4dfcc5c6df6b7d801e1e1e436711dbe6f76b436f9cbc6cacb45a56827babdd6396f3bd376a9426ee7be3bb9b8a3b8e383
aaaaad6ac95b402fe18d019d67897ced6b316ee0 scripted-diff: Bump copyright of files changed in 2019 (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK aaaaad6ac95b402fe18d019d67897ced6b316ee0
promag:
ACK aaaaad6ac95b402fe18d019d67897ced6b316ee0 🎉
fanquake:
ACK aaaaad6ac95b402fe18d019d67897ced6b316ee0 - going to merge this now because the year is over and conflicts are minimal.
Tree-SHA512: 58cb1f53bc4c1395b2766f36fabc7e2332e213780a802762fff0afd59468dad0c3265f553714d761c7a2c44ff90f7dc250f04458f4b2eb8eef8b94f8c9891321
d478a472eb0d666e8a762ed8d24fafbabc5f94f3 test: Fix combine_logs.py for AppVeyor build (Martin Zumsande)
Pull request description:
Fixes#16894
This fixes the problem of AppVeyor builds not showing `debug.log` if a functional test fails, because the windows separator `\` doesn't work together with the regex in `combine_logs.py`.
A fix was already attempted in #16896, however, that PR became inactive and was marked "up for grabs", plus it's a really small change.
As suggested by jamesob, this PR uses `pathlib`: For the glob and to convert the path to a posix-style string, it leaves the regex as is (in contrast to #16896 which adjusted the regex).
I tested this locally on Windows and Ubuntu.
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: 603b4359b6009b6da874c30f69759acda03730ee5747898a0fe957a5fc37ee9ba07858c6aa2169bf4c40521f37e47138e8314d698652ea2760fa0a3f76b890bd
cc556e4a30 Add test for superfluous witness record in deserialization (Gregory Sanders)
25b0786581 Fix missing input template by making minimal tx (Gregory Sanders)
Pull request description:
Adds coverage for changed behavior in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14039
ACKs for commit cc556e:
MarcoFalke:
utACK cc556e4a30b4a32eab6722f590489d89b2875de3
Tree-SHA512: 3404c8f75e87503983fac5ae27d877309eb3b902f2ec993762911c71610ca449bef0ed98bd17e029414828025b2713e1bd012e63b2a06497e34f1056acaa6321
fac4e731a8 test: Run invalid_txs.InputMissing test in feature_block (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Tree-SHA512: 24c3f519ba0cf417b66e0df6f5ddc0430e3f419af4705a9c85096da47ff4d8f51487d65b68f3f993800003b3f936d95d8a0bade846e1b45f95b2bdbecc9ebab7
fafd9165e911bf33d6212ca8a613b71878c82449 test: Add missing sync_all to feature_coinstatsindex (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Sync the blocks before invalidating them to ensure all nodes are on the right tip. Otherwise nodes[0] might stay on the "stale" block and the test fails (intermittently)
ACKs for top commit:
jamesob:
crACK fafd9165e9
Tree-SHA512: ca567b97b839b56c91d52831eaac18d8c843d376be90c9fd8b49d2eb4a46b801a1d2402996d5dfe2bef3e2c9bd75d19ed443e3f42cc4679c5f20043ba556efc8
5353b0c64d32e44fc411464e080d4b00fae7124e Change type definitions for "chain" and "setup_clean_chain" from type comments to Python 3.6+ types. Additionally, set type for "nodes". (Kiminuo)
Pull request description:
### Motivation
When I wanted to understand better https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19145/files#diff-4bebbd3b112dc222ea7e75ef051838ceffcee63b9e9234a98a4cc7251d34451b test, I noticed that navigation in PyCharm/VS Code did not work for `nodes` variable. I think this is frustrating, especially for newcomers.
### Summary
* This PR modifies Python 3.5 [type comments](https://mypy.readthedocs.io/en/stable/cheat_sheet_py3.html#variables) to Python 3.6+ types and adds a proper type for `nodes` [instance attribute](https://mypy.readthedocs.io/en/stable/class_basics.html#instance-and-class-attributes).
* This PR does not change behavior.
* This PR is intentionally very small, if the concept is accepted, a follow-up PRs can be more ambitious.
### End result
1. Open `test/functional/feature_abortnode.py`
2. Move your caret to: `self.nodes[0].generate[caret here](3)`
3. Use "Go to definition" [F12] should work now.
I have tested this on PyCharm (Windows, Ubuntu) and VS Code (Windows, Ubuntu).
Note: Some `TestNode` methods (e.g. `self.nodes[0].getblock(...)` ) use `__call__` mechanism and navigation does not work for them even with this PR.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK 5353b0c64d32e44fc411464e080d4b00fae7124e
theStack:
ACK 5353b0c64d32e44fc411464e080d4b00fae7124e
Tree-SHA512: 821773f052ab9b2889dc357d38c59407a4af09e3b86d7134fcca7d78e5edf3a5ede9bfb37595ea97caf9ebfcbda372bcf73763b7f89b0677670f21b3e396a12b
55311197c483477b79883da5da09f2bc71acc7cf Added new test for future blocks reacceptance (sanket1729)
511a5af4622915c236cfb11df5234232c2983e45 Fixed inconsistencies between code and comments (sanket1729)
Pull request description:
This Commit does 3 things:
1) Adds a test case for checking reacceptance a previously rejected block which
was too far in the future.
~~2) clean up uses of rehash or calc_sha256 where it was not needed~~
3) While constructing block 44, this commit makes the code consistent with the expected figure in
the comment just above it by adding a transaction to the block.
4) Fix comment describing `sign_tx()` function
ACKs for top commit:
duncandean:
reACK 5531119
brunoerg:
reACK 55311197c483477b79883da5da09f2bc71acc7cf
Tree-SHA512: d40c72fcdbb0b2a0715adc58441eeea08147ee2ec5e371a4ccc824ebfdc6450698bd40aaeecb7ea7bfdb3cd1b264dd821b890276fff8b8d89b7225cdd9d6b546
fad7be584ffaf8099cc099d9378ba831c9483260 test: Fix intermittent p2p_finerprint issue (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
A single sync_with_ping can't be used to drop a block announcement, as the block might be sent *after* the ping has been responded to.
Fix that by waiting for the block.
ACKs for top commit:
theStack:
ACK fad7be584ffaf8099cc099d9378ba831c9483260
Tree-SHA512: d43ba9d07273486858f65a26326cc6637ef743bf7b400e5048ba7eac266fb1893283e6503dd49f179caa1abab2977315fb70ba9fba34be9a817a74259d8e4034
fbeb8c43bc5bce131e15eb9e162ea457bfe2b83e test: add type annotations to util.get_rpc_proxy (fanquake)
Pull request description:
Split out from #22092 while we address the functional test failure.
ACKs for top commit:
instagibbs:
ACK fbeb8c43bc
Tree-SHA512: 031ef8703202ae5271787719fc3fea8693574b2eb937ccf852875de95798d7fa3c39a8db7c91993d0c946b45d9b4d6de570bd1102e0344348784723bd84803a8
f685a13bef0418663015ea6d8f448f075510c0ec doc: GetTransaction()/getrawtransaction follow-ups to #22383 (John Newbery)
abc57e1f0882a1a2bb20474648419979af6e383d refactor: move `GetTransaction(...)` to node/transaction.cpp (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
~This PR is based on #22383, which should be reviewed first~ (merged by now).
In [yesterday's PR review club session to PR 22383](https://bitcoincore.reviews/22383), the idea of moving the function `GetTransaction(...)` from src/validation.cpp to src/node/transaction.cpp came up. With this, the circular dependency "index/txindex -> validation -> index/txindex" is removed (see change in `lint-circular-dependencies.sh`). Thanks to jnewbery for suggesting and to sipa for providing historical background.
Relevant IRC log:
```
17:52 <jnewbery> Was anyone surprised that GetTransaction() is in validation.cpp? It seems to me that node/transaction.cpp would be a more appropriate place for it.
17:53 <raj_> jnewbery, +1
17:53 <stickies-v> agreed!
17:54 <glozow> jnewbery ya
17:54 <jnewbery> seems weird that validation would call into txindex. I wonder if we remove this function, then validation would no longer need to #include txindex
17:54 <sipa> GetTransaction predates node/transaction.cpp, and even the generic index framework itself :)
17:55 <sipa> (before 0.8, validation itself used the txindex)
17:55 <jnewbery> (and GetTransaction() seems like a natural sibling to BroadcastTransaction(), which is already in node/transaction.cpp)
17:55 <jnewbery> sipa: right, this is not meant as a criticism of course. Just wondering if we can organize things a bit more rationally now that we have better separation between things.
17:55 <sipa> jnewbery: sure, just providing background
17:56 <sipa> seems very reasonable to move it elsewhere now
```
The commit should be trivial to review with `--color-moved`.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
Code review ACK f685a13bef0418663015ea6d8f448f075510c0ec
rajarshimaitra:
tACK f685a13bef
mjdietzx:
crACK f685a13bef0418663015ea6d8f448f075510c0ec
LarryRuane:
Code review, test ACK f685a13bef0418663015ea6d8f448f075510c0ec
Tree-SHA512: 0e844a6ecb1be04c638b55bc4478c2949549a4fcae01c984eee078de74d176fb19d508fc09360a62ad130677bfa7daf703b67870800e55942838d7313246248c
2ebf2fe0e4727a5a57a03f4283bdf1e263855803 test: check for RPC error 'Transaction already in block chain' (-27) (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This PR adds missing test coverage for the RPC error "Transaction already in block chain" (error code `RPC_VERIFY_ALREADY_IN_CHAIN` = `RPC_TRANSACTION_ALREADY_IN_CHAIN` = -27), which is thrown in the function `BroadcastTransaction` (src/node/transaction.cpp).
ACKs for top commit:
kristapsk:
ACK 2ebf2fe0e4727a5a57a03f4283bdf1e263855803 (ran linter, looked at changes and ran modified test and checked code in `src/node/transaction.cpp`)
darosior:
ACK 2ebf2fe0e4727a5a57a03f4283bdf1e263855803
Tree-SHA512: 8bfbd3ff3da0cb3b8745f69b8ca2377f85fa99f0270750840b60e6ae43b5645c5c59b236993e8b2ad0444ec4171484e4f1ee23fa7e81b79d4222bcb623666fa5
20edf4bcf61e9fa310c3d7f3cac0c80a04df5364 rpc: Return block time in getblockchaininfo (João Barbosa)
Pull request description:
Return tip time in `getblockchaininfo`, for some use cases this can save a call to `getblock`.
ACKs for top commit:
naumenkogs:
ACK 20edf4bcf61e9fa310c3d7f3cac0c80a04df5364
theStack:
re-ACK 20edf4bcf61e9fa310c3d7f3cac0c80a04df5364
0xB10C:
ACK 20edf4bcf61e9fa310c3d7f3cac0c80a04df5364
kristapsk:
ACK 20edf4bcf61e9fa310c3d7f3cac0c80a04df5364
Zero-1729:
re-ACK 20edf4bcf61e9fa310c3d7f3cac0c80a04df5364
Tree-SHA512: 29a920cfff1ef53e0af601c3f93f8f9171f3be47fc84b0fa293cb865b824976e8c1510b17b27d17daf0b8e658dd77d9dc388373395f0919fc4a23cd5019642d5
489ebfd7a16443d8263c048d55622da297df7c39 tests: feature_backwards_compatibility.py test downgrade after upgrade (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
After upgrading the node, try to go back to the original version to make sure that using a newer node version does not prevent the wallet file from being downgraded again.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK 489ebfd7a16443d8263c048d55622da297df7c39
Tree-SHA512: 86231de6514b3657912fd9d6621212166fd2b29b591fc97120092c548babcf1d6f50b5bd103b28cecde395a26809134f01c1a198725596c3626420de3fd1f017
80d4423f997e15780bfa3f91bf4b4bf656b8ea45 Test buffered valid message (Troy Giorshev)
Pull request description:
This PR is a tweak of #19302. This sends a valid message.
Additionally, this test includes logging in the same vein as #19272.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
tested ACK 80d4423f997e15780bfa3f91bf4b4bf656b8ea45 (added an assert(false) to observe deterministic coverage) 🌦
gzhao408:
ACK 80d4423f99👊
Tree-SHA512: 3b1aa5ec480a1661917354788923d64595e2886448c9697ec0606a81293e8b4a4642b2b3cc9afb2206ce6f74e5c6d687308c5ad19cb73c5b354d3071ad8496f8
Adds missing changes from p2p_invalid_tx.py but one assert is still disabled
fa4c29bc1d2425f861845bae4f3816d9817e622a test: Add various low-level p2p tests (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
ACK fa4c29bc1d242
Tree-SHA512: 842821b97359d4747c763398f7013415858c18a300cd882887bc812d039b5cbb67b9aa6f68434575dbc3c52f7eb8c43d1b293a59555a7242c0ca615cf44dc0aa
dc12f2e212dfacbe238cf68eb454b9ec71169bbc test: improve error msg on previous release tarball extraction failure (kdmukai)
7121fd8fa7de50ff67157f81f9e0f267b9795dbb test: self-sign previous release binaries for arm64 macOS (kdmukai)
Pull request description:
## The Problem
If you run `test/get_previous_releases.py -b` on an M1 or M2 mac, you'll get an unsigned v23.0 binary in the arm64 tarball. macOS [sets stricter requirements on ARM binaries](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26996578) so the unsigned arm64 binary is apparently completely unusable without being signed/notarized(?).
This means that any test that depends on a previous release (e.g. `wallet_backwards_compatibility.py`) will fail because the v23.0 node cannot launch:
```
TestFramework (ERROR): Assertion failed
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/Users/kdmukai/dev/bitcoin-core/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 563, in start_nodes
node.wait_for_rpc_connection()
File "/Users/kdmukai/dev/bitcoin-core/test/functional/test_framework/test_node.py", line 231, in wait_for_rpc_connection
raise FailedToStartError(self._node_msg(
test_framework.test_node.FailedToStartError: [node 2] bitcoind exited with status -9 during initialization
```
This can also be confirmed by downloading bitcoin-23.0-arm64-apple-darwin.tar.gz (https://bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-core-23.0/) and trying to run any of the binaries manually on an M1 or M2 mac.
## Solution in this PR
(UPDATED) Per @ hebasto, we can self-sign the arm64 binaries. This PR checks each binary in the previous release's "bin/" and verifies if the arm64 binary is signed. If not, attempt to self-sign and confirm success.
(note: an earlier version of this PR downloaded the x86_64 binary as a workaround but this approach has been discarded)
## Longer term solution
If possible, produce signed arm64 binaries in a future v23.x tarball?
Note that this same problem affects the new v24.0.1 arm64 tarball so perhaps a signed v24.x.x tarball would also be ideal?
That being said, this PR will check all current and future arm64 binaries and self-sign as needed, so perhaps we need not worry about pre-signing the tarball binaries. And I did test a version of `get_previous_releases.py` that includes the new v24.0.1 binaries and it successfully self-signed both v23.0 and v24.0.1, as expected.
## Further info:
Somewhat related to: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15774#issuecomment-1265164753
And @ fanquake noted on IRC that you can confirm which binaries are or are not signed via:
```
$ codesign -v -d bitcoin-qt
bitcoin-qt: code object is not signed at all
```
ACKs for top commit:
hebasto:
ACK dc12f2e212dfacbe238cf68eb454b9ec71169bbc
Tree-SHA512: 644895f8e97f5ffb3c4754c1db2c48abd77fa100c2058e3c896af04806596fc2b9c807a3f3a2add5be53301ad40ca2b8171585bd254e691f6eb38714d938396b
dba123167236a172d2d33861d58aa94a19729671 test: previous releases: add v23.0 (Sjors Provoost)
Pull request description:
Follows the same pattern as d8b705f1caeb3b4a6790cb26e4e5584ca791d965 (v22.0) and 8a57a06a5062dd8dfdefca4e404d0ddbd2a3da1d (v0.21.0).
Starting from v23.0 there is a separate macOS release for x86_64 and aarch64.
ACKs for top commit:
prusnak:
Approach ACK dba123167236a172d2d33861d58aa94a19729671
Tree-SHA512: 249aeddd5e80e163578581e5c8e9b6579f3694abc3d1fb68dddb7b42d75021ad85266688ec4a365a6631d82a65a19873aff7ba61c0ea59d21f8adbe4b772dc16
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Non-deterministic IS locks aren't used anymore since v18 dip24.
We should drop that support to make code simpler.
## What was done?
Dropped non-deterministic IS code, `evo_instantsend_tests` and
`feature_llmq_is_migration.py` (don't need it anymore), adjusted func
tests.
## How Has This Been Tested?
all tests, synced 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
- [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: Konstantin Akimov <545784+knst@users.noreply.github.com>
511aa4f1c7508f15cab8d7e58007900ad6fd3d5d Add unit test for ChaCha20's new caching (Pieter Wuille)
fb243d25f754da8f01793b41e2d225b917f3e5d7 Improve test vectors for ChaCha20 (Pieter Wuille)
93aee8bbdad808b7009279b67470d496cc26b936 Inline ChaCha20 32-byte specific constants (Pieter Wuille)
62ec713961ade7b58e90c905395558a41e8a59f0 Only support 32-byte keys in ChaCha20{,Aligned} (Pieter Wuille)
f21994a02e1cc46d41995581b54222abc655be93 Use ChaCha20Aligned in MuHash3072 code (Pieter Wuille)
5d16f757639e2cc6e81db6e07bc1d5dd74abca6c Use ChaCha20 caching in FastRandomContext (Pieter Wuille)
38eaece67b1bc37b2f502348c5d7537480a34346 Add fuzz test for testing that ChaCha20 works as a stream (Pieter Wuille)
5f05b27841af0bed1b6e7de5f46ffe33e5919e4d Add xoroshiro128++ PRNG (Martin Leitner-Ankerl)
12ff72476ac0dbf8add736ad3fb5fad2eeab156c Make unrestricted ChaCha20 cipher not waste keystream bytes (Pieter Wuille)
6babf402130a8f3ef3058594750aeaa50b8f5044 Rename ChaCha20::Seek -> Seek64 to clarify multiple of 64 (Pieter Wuille)
e37bcaa0a6dbb334ab6e817efcb609ccee6edc39 Split ChaCha20 into aligned/unaligned variants (Pieter Wuille)
Pull request description:
This is an alternative to #25354 (by my benchmarking, somewhat faster), subsumes #25712, and adds additional test vectors.
It separates the multiple-of-64-bytes-only "core" logic (which becomes simpler) from a layer around which performs caching/slicing to support arbitrary byte amounts. Both have their uses (in particular, the MuHash3072 code can benefit from multiple-of-64-bytes assumptions), plus the separation results in more readable code. Also, since FastRandomContext effectively had its own (more naive) caching on top of ChaCha20, that can be dropped in favor of ChaCha20's new built-in caching.
I thought about rebasing #25712 on top of this, but the changes before are fairly extensive, so redid it instead.
ACKs for top commit:
ajtowns:
ut reACK 511aa4f1c7508f15cab8d7e58007900ad6fd3d5d
dhruv:
tACK crACK 511aa4f1c7
Tree-SHA512: 3aa80971322a93e780c75a8d35bd39da3a9ea570fbae4491eaf0c45242f5f670a24a592c50ad870d5fd09b9f88ec06e274e8aa3cefd9561d623c63f7198cf2c7
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Some headers include other heavy headers, such as `logging.h`,
`tinyformat.h`, `iostream`. These headers are heavy and increase
compilation time on scale of whole project drastically because can be
used in many other headers.
## What was done?
Moved many heavy includes from headers to cpp files to optimize
compilation time.
In some places added forward declarations if it is reasonable.
As side effect removed 2 circular dependencies:
```
"llmq/debug -> llmq/dkgsessionhandler -> llmq/debug"
"llmq/debug -> llmq/dkgsessionhandler -> llmq/dkgsession -> llmq/debug"
```
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run build 2 times before refactoring and after refactoring: `make clean
&& sleep 10s; time make -j18`
Before refactoring:
```
real 5m37,826s
user 77m12,075s
sys 6m20,547s
real 5m32,626s
user 76m51,143s
sys 6m24,511s
```
After refactoring:
```
real 5m18,509s
user 73m32,133s
sys 6m21,590s
real 5m14,466s
user 73m20,942s
sys 6m17,868s
```
~5% of improvement for compilation time. That's not huge, but that's
worth to get merged
There're several more refactorings TODO but better to do them later by
backports:
- bitcoin/bitcoin#27636
- bitcoin/bitcoin#26286
- bitcoin/bitcoin#27238
- and maybe this one: bitcoin/bitcoin#28200
## 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
