5078baea2b fix(test): wait for chainlock before mining a block we expect to include said chainlock (pasta)
f39c1e6f4c fix: guard m_can_tx_relay behind m_tx_relay_mutex; make it private; add additional annotations (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
See each commit; fixes two bugs, both discovered while running feature_llmq_chainlocks.py with tsan / debug.
one a datarace in net_processing.cpp and the other in the test I was using to ensure this fix was correct, feature_llmq_chainlocks
## What was done?
### net_processing.cpp
You can see the datarace here: https://gist.github.com/PastaPastaPasta/c966a9f805758b34524085e3d52ea7f8
We simply guard it with an existing mutex that is always locked in close proximity.
### feature_llmq_chainlocks.py
Most of the time, while generating the cycle quorum, there is sufficient time to generate a chainlock; however, this is racey, and I've observed locally where the block gets generated before a chainlock is present and as such `test_coinbase_best_cl` fails. We should instead wait for the chainlock first, and then mine the block. This was we can ensure the mined block will include that chainlock.
This was observed locally maybe 1/10 times or so
## How Has This Been Tested?
ran feature_llmq_chainlocks.py ~40 times locally with tsan / debug
## Breaking Changes
None
## 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
- [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)_
ACKs for top commit:
kwvg:
utACK 5078baea2b
knst:
utACK 5078baea2b
UdjinM6:
utACK 5078baea2b
Tree-SHA512: b346fc60809df72d0161f625073dce7062bd2641d35e4f80160fac9afeec63707de552e2856940ac2604875908ae3b98a225d352de36bfbfc6ee3fbe1e1538ff
Most of the time, while generating the cycle quorum, there is sufficient time to generate a chainlock; however, this is racey, and I've observed locally where the block gets generated before a chainlock is present and as such `test_coinbase_best_cl` fails. We should instead wait for the chainlock first, and then mine the block. This was we can ensure the mined block will include that chainlock.
This was observed locally maybe 1/10 times or so
9a9d0d5b79 feat: drop SPORK 24 (EHF) so far as this feature works on testnet / mainnet (Konstantin Akimov)
da0dc06eea perf: optimize feature_mnehf.py by generating less blocks (Konstantin Akimov)
0de3923b06 feat: bury fork mn_rr (masternode reward reallocation) (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
MN_RR is activated on mainnet: time to bury it!
## What was done?
Hard-fork mn_rr is buried. Prior fixes are done here: https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6270 and https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6269
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit and functional 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
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
light ACK 9a9d0d5b79
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 9a9d0d5b79
Tree-SHA512: 73ea0ca1270f15f6f1193efbaf402d476c84e9a843af85b7eae3e40199f4c943ad40f58e062b8db20e1c5c69c1a85579ebaf0722f1044ee2e1a4e7f96c58e645
40f2ab906c test: don't attempt to reconnect already connected nodes (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
4a0fc8b69e test: don't attempt to (dis)connect nodes to/from themselves (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
Pull request description:
## Additional Information
* Dependency for https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6276
## 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 **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK 40f2ab906c
Tree-SHA512: aaaeedabeb6b8ef77187fc14db1888c39863daf66afda93b8c8bc1dbbdf3ff6734445fd296d5b1034da6104e2d7cfcacf26b97b7be0a697b7a99f3671b6cb9a2
that's a result of:
contrib/devtools/copyright_header.py update ./
it is not scripted diff, because it works differentlly on my localhost and in CI:
CI doesn't want to use git commit date which is mocked to 30th Dec of 2023
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
This pull request is a follow-up to
[some](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5834#discussion_r1470105685)
[feedback](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5834#discussion_r1467009815)
received on [dash#5834](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5834) as
the patterns highlighted were present in different parts of the codebase
and hence not corrected within the PR itself but addressed separately.
This is that separate PR 🙂 (with some additional cleanup of my own)
## What was done?
* This pull request will remain a draft until
[dash#5834](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5834) as it will
introduce more changes that will need to be corrected in this PR.
* Code introduced that is unique to Dash Core (CoinJoin, InstantSend,
etc.) has been excluded from un-Dashification as the purpose of it is to
reduce backport conflicts, which don't apply in those cases.
* `CWallet::CreateTransaction` and the `CreateTransactionTest` fixture
have been excluded as the former originates from
[dash#3668](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/3668) and the latter
from [dash#3667](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/3667) and are
distinct enough to be unique to Dash Core.
* There are certain Dashifications and SegWit-removals that prove
frustrating as it would break compatibility with programs that rely on
the naming of certain keys
* `getrawmempool`, `getmempoolancestors`, `getmempooldescendants` and
`getmempoolentry` return `vsize` which is currently an alias of `size`.
I have been advised to retain `vsize` in lieu of potential future
developments. (this was originally remedied in
219a1d08973e7ccda6e778218b9a8218b4aae034 but has since been dropped)
* `getaddressmempool`, `getaddressutxos` and `getaddressdeltas` all
return a value with the key `satoshis`. This is frustrating to rename to
`duffs` for compatibility reasons.
* `decodepsbt` returns (if applicable) `non_witness_utxo` which is
frustrating to rename simply to `utxo` for the same reason.
* `analyzepsbt` returns (if applicable) `estimated_vsize` which
frustrating to rename to `estimated_size` for the same reason.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
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)_
… best height
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Platform wants to know the height of the bestchainlock when they call
submitchainlock; sooo we change the API of submitchainlock to also
return the height
## What was done?
Adjust API and tests
## How Has This Been Tested?
New tests added for this behavior
## Breaking Changes
Not really any; I **guess** that return value could be considered
breaking change; but going from nothing -> something feels unlikely to
break anything although it in theory could.
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [ ] 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>
Co-authored-by: Konstantin Akimov <knstqq@gmail.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
`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>
## 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>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
With DIP29 added to v20, miners include best CL Signature in CbTx.
The purpose of this test, is to ensure that mining is still possible
when CL information isn't available.
In such case, miners are expected to copy best CL Signature from CbTx of
previous block.
## What was done?
Two scenarios are implemented:
- Add dynamically a node, make sure `getbestchainlock()` fails, let it
mine a block.
- Disable `SPORK_19_CHAINLOCKS_ENABLED`, add dynamically a node, make
sure `getbestchainlock()` fails, let it mine a block.
In both tests, we make sure the block is accepted by everyone and that
the `bestCLSignature` in CbTx is copied from previous block.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_llmq_chainlocks.py`
## 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>
## 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
Currently, Chainlocks are either enabled or disabled. This PR adds a
third state: enabled but we will not sign new ones.
Should probably backport this to v19.x
## What was done?
Spork state != 0 but active will now result in chain locks being
enforced but not created.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [ ] 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
I think the logic in activate_by_name is broken
## What was done?
fix it
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
- Bumped version of `CbTx`. Added fields `bestCLHeightDiff`,
`bestCLSignature`
- Miner starting from v20 fork, includes best CL signature in `CbTx` (if
available) or null signature.
- All nodes should verify included CL signature before accepting the
block.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Basically, activated v20 on in the beginning of
`feature_llmq_chainlocks.py`
## Breaking Changes
Yes, new version of CbTx
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
20b6e959449d0c07639599b99ba917d2cac62493 test: refactor functional tests to use restart_node (Christopher Coverdale)
Pull request description:
fixes#19345
This PR replaces consecutive calls to `stop_node()` and `start_node()` with `restart_node()` where appropriate in the functional tests.
The commit messages are repetitive but focused on each file changed with the intention of squashing if applicable.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK 20b6e959449d0c07639599b99ba917d2cac62493
Tree-SHA512: 1cfa1fb8c5f01a7b00fe44e80dbef072147f21e3891098817acd4275b0c5d91dc1c787594209e117edd418f2fa3a7b2dfcbafdf87efc07f740040938d641f3a9
* Handle attempts to read non-existent records from isdb properly
* Do not reject blocks that conflict with islocks while still syncing
Otherwise you can stuck with no new blocks/headers which means you won't be able to verify new chainlocks that might override stored islocks
* Handle duplicates/conflicting islocks better
* More constness
68400d8b96 tests: Use explicit imports (practicalswift)
Pull request description:
Enable automatic detection of undefined names in Python tests scripts. Remove wildcard imports.
Wildcard imports make it unclear which names are present in the namespace, confusing both readers and many automated tools.
An additional benefit of not using wildcard imports in tests scripts is that readers of a test script then can infer the rough testing scope just by looking at the imports.
Before this commit:
```
$ contrib/devtools/lint-python.sh | head -10
./test/functional/feature_rbf.py:8:1: F403 'from test_framework.util import *' used; unable to detect undefined names
./test/functional/feature_rbf.py:9:1: F403 'from test_framework.script import *' used; unable to detect undefined names
./test/functional/feature_rbf.py:10:1: F403 'from test_framework.mininode import *' used; unable to detect undefined names
./test/functional/feature_rbf.py:15:12: F405 bytes_to_hex_str may be undefined, or defined from star imports: test_framework.mininode, test_framework.script, test_framework.util
./test/functional/feature_rbf.py:17:58: F405 CScript may be undefined, or defined from star imports: test_framework.mininode, test_framework.script, test_framework.util
./test/functional/feature_rbf.py:25:13: F405 COIN may be undefined, or defined from star imports: test_framework.mininode, test_framework.script, test_framework.util
./test/functional/feature_rbf.py:26:31: F405 satoshi_round may be undefined, or defined from star imports: test_framework.mininode, test_framework.script, test_framework.util
./test/functional/feature_rbf.py:26:60: F405 COIN may be undefined, or defined from star imports: test_framework.mininode, test_framework.script, test_framework.util
./test/functional/feature_rbf.py:30:41: F405 satoshi_round may be undefined, or defined from star imports: test_framework.mininode, test_framework.script, test_framework.util
./test/functional/feature_rbf.py:30:68: F405 COIN may be undefined, or defined from star imports: test_framework.mininode, test_framework.script, test_framework.util
$
```
After this commit:
```
$ contrib/devtools/lint-python.sh | head -10
$
```
Tree-SHA512: 3f826d39cffb6438388e5efcb20a9622ff8238247e882d68f7b38609877421b2a8e10e9229575f8eb6a8fa42dec4256986692e92922c86171f750a0e887438d9
* Implement auto-recovery from hardforks
This should help users who fail to update their nodes/wallets in time when there is a hardfork.
* tests: tweak feature_llmq_chainlocks.py to check new behaviour
* tests: tidy up feature_llmq_chainlocks.py a bit
* More accurate handling of the BLOCK_CONFLICT_CHAINLOCK flag
* Update test/functional/feature_llmq_chainlocks.py
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
* tests: make sure that previous tip on the reorged node is marked conflicting after chainlock
* Apply suggestions from code review
Co-authored-by: dustinface <35775977+xdustinface@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: dustinface <35775977+xdustinface@users.noreply.github.com>
* Merge #11796: [tests] Functional test naming convention
5fecd84 [tests] Remove redundant import in blocktools.py test (Anthony Towns)
9b20bb4 [tests] Check tests conform to naming convention (Anthony Towns)
7250b4e [tests] README.md nit fixes (Anthony Towns)
82b2712 [tests] move witness util functions to blocktools.py (John Newbery)
1e10854 [tests] [docs] update README for new test naming scheme (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
Splitting #11774 into two parts -- this part updates the README with the proposed naming convention, and adds some checks to test_runner.py that the number of tests violating the naming convention doesn't increase too much. Idea is this part of the change should not introduce merge conflicts or require much rebasing, so reviews of the complicated bits won't become invalidated too often; while the second part will just be file renames, which will require regular rebasing and will introduce merge conflicts with pending PRs, but can be merged later, and should also be much easier to review, since it will only include relatively trivial changes.
Tree-SHA512: b96557d41714addbbfe2aed62fb5a48639eaeb1eb3aba30ac1b3a86bb3cb8d796c6247f9c414c4695c4bf54c0ec9968ac88e2f88fb62483bc1a2f89368f7fc80
* update violation count
Signed-off-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
* Merge #11774: [tests] Rename functional tests
6f881cc880 [tests] Remove EXPECTED_VIOLATION_COUNT (Anthony Towns)
3150b3fea7 [tests] Rename misc functional tests. (Anthony Towns)
81b79f2c39 [tests] Rename rpc_* functional tests. (Anthony Towns)
61b8f7f273 [tests] Rename p2p_* functional tests. (Anthony Towns)
90600bc7db [tests] Rename wallet_* functional tests. (Anthony Towns)
ca6523d0c8 [tests] Rename feature_* functional tests. (Anthony Towns)
Pull request description:
This PR changes the functional tests to have a consistent naming scheme:
tests for individual RPC methods are named rpc_...
tests for interfaces (REST, ZMQ, RPC features) are named interface_...
tests that explicitly test the p2p interface are named p2p_...
tests for wallet features are named wallet_...
tests for mining features are named mining_...
tests for mempool behaviour are named mempool_...
tests for full features that aren't wallet/mining/mempool are named feature_...
Rationale: it's sometimes difficult for new contributors to know what's already covered by existing tests and where new tests should be added. Naming in a consistent fashion makes it easier to see what's already covered at a glance.
Tree-SHA512: 4246790552d42bbd95f6d5bdf67702b81b3b2c583ce7eaf1fe6d8e254721279b47315973c6e9ae82dad6e4c747f12188160764bf2624c0f8f3b4d39330ec8b16
* rename tests and edit associated strings to align test-suite with test name standards
Signed-off-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
* fix grammar in test/functional/test_runner.py
Co-authored-by: dustinface <35775977+xdustinface@users.noreply.github.com>
* ci: Fix excluded test names
* rename feature_privatesend.py to rpc_privatesend.py
Signed-off-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
Co-authored-by: Wladimir J. van der Laan <laanwj@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: MarcoFalke <falke.marco@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: dustinface <35775977+xdustinface@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: xdustinface <xdustinfacex@gmail.com>
