b72925e7cea11522aca65580c136dbacb2753e83 lint: remove qt SIGNAL/SLOT lint (fanquake)
Pull request description:
I think we are past the point where we need to lint for this, the CPU
can probably be better utilized.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK b72925e7cea11522aca65580c136dbacb2753e83
Tree-SHA512: 3da6e4811cdd16ff64c7e26f641f7b24f0405cc86cec36666de58691d447eca8662c924df31c6c60b3523c13590bdc62205a3237b1b1794dd8cdef35519309b3
17648493df478fa9316cc9ed66fe6bc1c2c820a4 doc: Speed up functional test runs using ramdisk (willcl-ark)
Pull request description:
Using a ramdisk for the functional tests can give noticable speedups for developers and reviewers.
Local testing with an 8GB ramdisk saw a full test run using `test/functional/test_runner.py --jobs=100 --cachedir=/mnt/tmp/cache --tmpdir=/mnt/tmp` reduced from ~280 seconds to ~99 seconds.
Possible bikeshedding opportunity to be had over whether this might best fit into `doc/productivity.md`, but IMO more people will likely see it (and it will therefore be more useful) if it is here.
It seems best to select `tmpfs` over `ramfs` as `ramfs` can grow dynamically (good) but cannot be limited in size and might cause the system to hang if you run out of ram (bad), whereas `tmpfs` is size-limited and will overflow into swap.
ACKs for top commit:
josibake:
ACK 17648493df
jamesob:
ACK 17648493df
Tree-SHA512: b8e0846d4558a7a33fbb7cd190e30c36182db36095e1c1feae8c10a12042cff9d97739964bd9211d8564231dc99b4be5eed806d12a1d11dfa908157d7f26cc67
fadd73037e266edb844f0972e82e9213171ef214 refactor: Remove implicit-integer-sign-change suppressions in validation.cpp (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
A file-wide suppression is problematic because it will wave through future violations, potentially bugs.
Fix that by using per-statement casts.
ACKs for top commit:
shaavan:
ACK fadd73037e266edb844f0972e82e9213171ef214
theStack:
Code-review ACK fadd73037e266edb844f0972e82e9213171ef214
Tree-SHA512: a8a05613be35382b92d7970f958a4e8f4332432056eaa9d72f6719495134b93aaaeea692899d9035654d0e0cf56bcd759671eeeacfd0535582c0ea048ab58a56
c055f6b216659b844c8dcd4ff2a977f181099678 test: Remove false coinstatsindex test (Fabian Jahr)
Pull request description:
This test never actually tested the behavior that it describes in the comments. This was discovered in #21590 which seems to speed up muhash which lead to the test failing.
I can vaguely remember that the described behavior was desired by some reviewers of `coinstatsindex`: That `coinstatsindex` should be aware of stale blocks and able to return statistics on them as well. The index actually does this for blocks that it sees while the index is active, i.e. while running `coinstatsindex` all blocks will be indexed and even when they become stale the index (via `gettxoutsetinfo`) will still return a result for them when given the right hash. But this currently does not work for blocks that the node saw and that became stale _before_ the node activated `coinstatsindex`. While the index syncs initially everything but the active chain is ignored and I don't see any indication that this ever worked differently in the past.
Introducing this behavior seems non-trivial at first glance so, while I will give this a shot, I think the test should be removed so it does not confuse users and does not block #21590.
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: b05f5dfeea3e453c8bb7c761501d0d896d4412a3f0c08037955951fae9fe388c63402da401792591e18da8fb67734f47f1a297d573cdb66e0ced451698718067
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
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`ConnectBlock` can fail after `ProcessSpecialTxsInBlock`, we shouldn't
be notifying too early. Same for `DisconnectBlock` but that's less of an
issue imo.
## What was done?
Move notifications to the end of `ConnectBlock`/`DisconnectBlock`. There
is no `connman` in `CChainState` and I don't want to pass it in updates
struct so I changed `NotifyMasternodeListChanged` and used `connman`
from `CDSNotificationInterface` instead.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run unit test, run testnet qt wallet
## 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)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Be more explicit about the fact that spork24 is for non-mainnet only,
enforce it in code.
NOTE: I know we have EHF signalling disabled for mainnet in v20 but I
think it still makes sense to make sure spork24 condition won't slip
into mainnet in some future version accidentally.
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
## 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
1. we _should not_ skip masternode payments checks below
nSuperblockStartBlock or when governance is disabled
2. we _should_ skip superblock payee checks while we aren't synced yet
(should help recovering from missed triggers)
## What was done?
pls see individual commits.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, sync w/ and w/out `--disablegovernance`, reindexed on testnet
## 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
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
Addressed issues and comments from [PR
comment](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5469#discussion_r1317886678)
and [PR
comment](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5469#discussion_r1338704082)
`Params()` should be const; global variable `CMNHFManager` is a better
out-come.
## What was done?
The helpers and direct calls of `UpdateMNParams` for each block to
update non-constant member in `Params()` is not needed anymore. Instead
`CMNHFManager` takes cares about status of Signals for each block,
update them dynamically and save in evo db.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests.
## Breaking Changes
Changed rpc `getblockchaininfo`.
the field `ehf` changed meaning: it's now only a flag -1/0; but it is
introduced a new field `ehf_height` now that a height.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently, on functional tests v20 activates at height 1440 which is
later than needed.
## What was done?
Reduced the window size of v20 from 480 to 400 which activates v20 at
1200.
Adjusted tests to this change.
Note regarding the window analysis for MN payments in
`feature_llmq_evo.py` (reduced from 256 to 48 blocks):
48 window is enough to analyse 4 MNs and 5 EvoNodes (Weighted count=24)
On my machine using develop:
`python3 feature_llmq_rotation.py 145.45s user 30.00s system 68% cpu
4:16.93 total`
With this PR:
`python3 feature_llmq_rotation.py 119.26s user 24.61s system 62% cpu
3:50.89 total`
## How Has This Been Tested?
all tests
## Breaking Changes
no
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
MNs don't really vote NO on triggers that do not match their local
candidates because:
1. they bail out too early when they see that they are not the payee
2. the hash for objects to vote NO on was picked incorrectly.
## What was done?
Moved voting out of `CreateGovernanceTrigger` and into its own
`VoteGovernanceTriggers`. Refactored related code to use `optional`
while at it, dropped useless/misleading `IsValid()` call. Added some
safety belts, logging, tests.
## 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
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/5640
## What was done?
Tests that `activation_height` projected by `getblockchaininfo` during
locked_in phase.
Now, this test is only possible with v20 activation since v19, dip0024
are buried and mn_rr uses MNEF.
Enabled this test only in `feature_llmq_rotation.py`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
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
- [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>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
fixes#5666
kudos to @tinshen for discovering the issue 👍
## What was done?
add missing logic in FundTransaction
## How Has This Been Tested?
implement/run tests, test rpc manually
## 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
```
test/functional/feature_governance.py:205:59: F821 undefined name 'p0_amount'
test/functional/feature_governance.py:205:95: F821 undefined name 'p1_amount'
test/functional/feature_governance.py:205:131: F821 undefined name 'p2_amount'
```
## What was done?
add missing `self.`
## How Has This Been Tested?
run linter and `feature_governance.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)_
fea75ad3caa29972db32d3ce7e0fe125ec77a0eb refactor: Drop `boost/algorithm/string/replace.hpp` dependency (Hennadii Stepanov)
857526e8cbb0847a865e9c2509425960d458f535 test: Add test case for `ReplaceAll()` function (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
A new implementation of the `ReplaceAll()` seems enough for all of our purposes.
ACKs for top commit:
adam2k:
ACK Tested fea75ad3caa29972db32d3ce7e0fe125ec77a0eb
theStack:
Code-review ACK fea75ad3caa29972db32d3ce7e0fe125ec77a0eb
Tree-SHA512: dacfffc9d2bd1fb9f034baf8c045b1e8657b766db2f0a7f8ef7e25ee6cd888f315b0124c54aba7a29ae59186b176ef9868a8b709dc995ea215c6b4ce58e174d9
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Noticed a couple of things while I was trying to figure out if an
[issue](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5627#discussion_r1367153099)
@knst mentioned in #5627 could actually exist:
1. `GetPaymentsLimit()` won't work correctly with historical blocks rn.
We don't use it that way internally but it could be done via rpc and it
should provide correct results.
2. superblock params on regtest are too small to test them properly
3. because of (2) and a huge v20 activation window (comparing to sb
params) `feature_governance.py` doesn't test v20 switching states.
There's also no "sb on v20 activation block" test.
~NOTE: based on #5639 atm~
## What was done?
fix it, pls see individual commits
## 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
Small dip0024 related cleanups, regtest only.
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
## 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 _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
sb produced by sentinel:
>"DataString": ... \"payment_amounts\": \"20.00000000|20.00000000\", ...
>...
> "YesCount": 83,
sb produced by core:
>"DataString": ... \"payment_amounts\": \"20.00|20.00\", ...
> "YesCount": 13,
These 2 triggers are for the same block (900552), proposal hashes and
addresses are also the same but the difference in `payment_amounts`
format makes it look like a different trigger for core and this creates
a race.
## What was done?
Use `ValueFromAmount` instead of `FormatMoney` to avoid trimming
## 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 _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
fac395e5eb2cd3210ba6345f777a586a9bec84e3 ci: Bump ci/lint/Dockerfile (MarcoFalke)
fa6eb6516727a8675dc6e46634d8343e282528ab test: Use python3.8 pow() (MarcoFalke)
88881cf7ac029aea660c2413ca8e2a5136fcd41b Bump python minimum version to 3.8 (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
There is no pressing reason to drop support for 3.7, however there are several maintenance issues:
* There is no supported operating system that ships 3.7 by default. (debian:buster is EOL and unmaintained to the extent that it doesn't run in the CI environment. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27340#issuecomment-1484988445)
* Compiling python 3.7 from source is also unsupported on at least macos, according to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24017#issuecomment-1107820790
* Recent versions of lief require 3.8, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27507#issuecomment-1517561645
Fix all maintenance issues by bumping the minimum.
ACKs for top commit:
RandyMcMillan:
ACK fac395e
fjahr:
ACK fac395e5eb2cd3210ba6345f777a586a9bec84e3
fanquake:
ACK fac395e5eb2cd3210ba6345f777a586a9bec84e3
Tree-SHA512: c198decdbbe29d186d73ea3f6549d8a38479383495d14a965a2f9211ce39637b43f13a4c2a5d3bf56e2d468be4bbe49b4ee8e8e19ec69936ff43ddf2b714c712
96299a9d6c0a6b9125a58a63ee3147e55d1b086b Test: Move common function assert_approx() into util.py (fridokus)
Pull request description:
To reduce code duplication, move `assert_approx` into common framework `util.py`.
`assert_approx()` is used in two functional tests.
ACKs for top commit:
theStack:
ACK 96299a9
practicalswift:
ACK 96299a9d6c0a6b9125a58a63ee3147e55d1b086b -- DRY is good and diff looks correct
fanquake:
ACK 96299a9d6c0a6b9125a58a63ee3147e55d1b086b - thanks for contributing 🍻
Tree-SHA512: 8e9d397222c49536c7b3d6d0756cc5af17113e5af8707ac48a500fff1811167fb2e03f3c0445b0b9e80f34935f4d57cfb935c4790f6f5463a32a67df5f736939
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
The bug was introduced in the original PR #5026 and refactored later
(which is good actually cause we shouldn't mix refactoring and
bug-fixing :) )
## What was done?
fix conditions, add tests
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_asset_locks.py`
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Current implementation relies either on asserts or sometimes checks then
returning a special value; In the case of asserts (or no assert where we
use the value without checks) it'd be better to make it explicit to
function caller that the ptr must be not_null; otherwise gsl::not_null
will call terminate.
See
https://github.com/microsoft/GSL/blob/main/docs/headers.md#user-content-H-pointers-not_null
and
https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines#Rf-nullptr
I'm interested in a conceptual review; specifically on if this is
beneficial over just converting these ptrs to be a reference?
## What was done?
*Partial* implementation on using gsl::not_null in dash code
## How Has This Been Tested?
Building
## 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
- [ ] 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)_
---------
Signed-off-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Implementation EHF mechanism, part 4. Previous changes are:
- https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/4577
- https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5505
- https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5469
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently MN_RR is activated automatically by soft-fork activation after
v20 is activated.
It is not flexible enough, because platform may not be released by that
time yet or in opposite it can be too long to wait.
Also, any signal of EHF requires manual actions from MN owners to sign
EHF signal - it is automated here.
## What was done?
New spork `SPORK_24_MN_RR_READY`; new EHF manager that sign EHF signals
semi-automatically without manual actions; and send transaction with EHF
signal when signal is signed to network.
Updated rpc `getblockchaininfo` to return information about of EHF
activated forks.
Fixed function `IsTxSafeForMining` in chainlock's handler to skip
transactions without inputs (empty `vin`).
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests. Some tests have been updated due to new way
of MN_RR activation: `feature_asset_locks.py`, `feature_mnehf.py`,
`feature_llmq_evo.py` and unit test `block_reward_reallocation_tests`.
## Breaking Changes
New way of MN_RR activation.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Calculation of `platformReward` should ignore fees and rely only on
Block subsidy.
cc @QuantumExplorer
## What was done?
From now on, the following formula is applied:
```
blockReward = blockSubsidy + feeReward
masternodeReward = masternodeShare(blockSubsidy)
platformReward = platformShare(masternodeReward)
masternodeReward += masternodeShare(feeReward)
```
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
`plaftormReward` differs in networks where `mn_rr` is already active
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently, the `nSubsidyBase` calculation relies on difficulty. This
leads to variable Block Subsidity.
When Platform will be live, it would constantly require blocks
difficulty in order to calculate the `platformReward` (which relies on
Block Subsidy)
cc @QuantumExplorer
## What was done?
Starting from v20 activation, `nSubsidyBase` will no longer rely on
difficulty and will be constant to 5.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
Block rewards will differ.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Fixed a problem forgotten in #5588 in feature_asset_locks.py.
## What was done?
Avoid floating operations when calculating `coinbasevalue`
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Historical masternode data returned via rpcs like `protx listdiff` can
be broken because some collaterals might be spent already and
`GetUTXOCoin` wasn't able to get any info.
## What was done?
Use `GetTransaction` as a fallback.
## 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 _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
avoid potential discrepancies in block reward calculations
## What was done?
use integers (int64_t) only when dealing with block rewards, no
float/double
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests
## Breaking Changes
might fork off on devnets that use previous version
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
The block reward calculation logic in `SetTarget` doesn't work on
superblocks.
## What was done?
Move `CreditPoolDiff` checks out of `ProcessSpecialTxsInBlock` to use
correct block reward.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests
## Breaking Changes
n/a, sb blocks should now be processed correctly, non-sb blocks
shouldn't be affected
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Implementation of accepted proposal:
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/TREASURY-REALLOCATION-60-20-20
## What was done?
Once Masternode Reward Location Reallocation activates:
- Treasury is bumped to 20% of block subsidy.
- Block reward shares are immediately set to 75% for MN and 25% miners.
(Previous reallocation periods are dropped)
MN reward share should be 75% of block reward in order to represent 60%
of the block subsidy. (according to the proposal)
- `governancebudget` is returned from `getgovernanceinfo` RPC.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`block_reward_reallocation_tests`
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Unneeded suppressions were present
## What was done?
Removed them
## How Has This Been Tested?
Running linter
## 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
- [ ] 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
Requested by @QuantumExplorer for platform needs
## What was done?
New rpc `gettransactionsarelocked` that returns list of txes.
it does less heavy calculations and transfer less data by gRPC.
## How Has This Been Tested?
```
$ src/dash-cli gettransactionsarelocked '["e469de7994b9c1da8efd262fee8843efd7bdcab80c700dc1059c98b28f7c5c1b", "0d9fdf00c9568ff9103742b64e6b8287794633072f8824fa2c475f59e71dbace","0d3f48eebead54d640a7fc5692ddfcba619d8b49347d9a7c04586057c02dec9f"]'
[
{
"height": 907801,
"chainlock": true
},
{
"height": 101,
"chainlock": true
},
{
"height": -1,
"chainlock": false
}
]
```
Limiter tested by this call:
```
src/dash-cli gettransactionsarelocked '["", "","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","",""]' | wc
```
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
f6e4db27ceb67157dc13d13f34351cb87fec2be5 test: add aarch64-apple-darwin platform entry to get_previous_releases (Zero-1729)
Pull request description:
Over the course of reviewing a PR, I had to edit `test/get_previous_releases.py` (after I ran `git clean -xdff`) to run the backwards compatibility tests (e.g. `wallet_upgradewallet`, `feature_backwards_compatibility`, etc.), as currently on master, running the script as indicated in [`test/README.md`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/test/README.md), for example, on an M1 machine results in the following error, as the `aarch64-apple-darwin*` platform entry is presently not recognised:
> Output from an M1 machine running macOS v11.5.2
```sh
$ test/get_previous_releases.py -b v0.20.1 v0.19.1 v0.18.1 v0.17.2 v0.16.3 v0.15.2
Releases directory: releases
Not sure which binary to download for aarch64-apple-darwin20.6.0
```
As a quick fix, this PR adds the missing `aarch64-apple-darwin*` platform entry. Running the script now results in fetching the old binaries, as expected:
```sh
$ test/get_previous_releases.py -b v0.20.1 v0.19.1 v0.18.1 v0.17.2 v0.16.3 v0.15.2
Releases directory: releases
Fetching: https://bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.20.1/bitcoin-0.20.1-osx64.tar.gz
% Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current
Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed
0 20.9M 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- 0:00:02 --:--:-- 0
% Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current
Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed
100 20.9M 100 20.9M 0 0 136k 0 0:02:37 0:02:37 --:--:-- 95607
Checksum matched
…
Checksum matched
```
After this patch, the backwards compatibility tests also run successfully, as expected.
**Note**: I am open to other possible solutions.
---
Steps to reproduce:
> Ensure you take out the binaries in `releases` if they already exist.
Try running `test/get_previous_releases.py -b v0.15.2` or similar to fetch the old release binaries.
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: a238d909b70a61be622234bc49b05d2e91a8acfc5ea348d29f2c8a927fb793cb97365e558571e3f46d6a5650c4f3c6e28fa126c6e56b38e1eb98f7c3e3594d0f
fa80e10d94dbf86da84fc761b09fb631155a5b25 test: Add feature_taproot.py --previous_release (MarcoFalke)
85ccffa26686c6c9adbd18bdde37fc1747281bab test: move releases download incantation to README (Sjors Provoost)
29d6b1da2a862bfbb14e7821979c97416c5400e8 test: previous releases: add v0.20.1 (Sjors Provoost)
Pull request description:
Disabling the new consensus code at runtime is fine, but potentially fragile and incomplete. Fix that by giving the option to run with a version that has been compiled without any taproot code.
ACKs for top commit:
Sjors:
tACK fa80e10
NelsonGaldeman:
tACK fa80e10d94dbf86da84fc761b09fb631155a5b25
Tree-SHA512: 1a1feef823f08c05268759645a8974e1b2d39a024258f5e6acecbe25097aae3fa9302c27262978b40f1aa8e7b525b60c0047199010f2a5d6017dd6434b4066f0
179a051704321ba40277a5855d6ac0dbb45689dd util: improves error messages on get_previous_releases script (Nelson Galdeman)
Pull request description:
When previous releases are fetched and the specified version wasn't added to the checksum list we used to get a "Checksum did not match" which isn't true (https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/issues/753#issuecomment-879546719).
If the specified version number is not on the list, it now logs cannot do the comparison instead.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
cr ACK 179a051704321ba40277a5855d6ac0dbb45689dd
theStack:
tACK 179a051704321ba40277a5855d6ac0dbb45689dd, tested on Debian bullseye/sid
Tree-SHA512: 2a07ce75232f853fd311c43581f8faf12d423668946ae6ad784feece5b4d0edd57fc018ba1f0c5a73bfaccb326e0df9a643580d16bf427c1ec3ff34a9cdbc80c
fa1d5e51374bce9607b429836bbd3fe059e3c78c test: Fix get_previous_releases.py for aarch64 (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Otherwise it will fail with "Not sure which binary to download..."
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK fa1d5e51374bce9607b429836bbd3fe059e3c78c
Tree-SHA512: 0db71e898a431665757ce835016a4e05c629a95abc4a2951eac9bd9b5876ec3dc3d6f156d58565e2bcdf918cde4f2649183d4a58038ac13c705a7e914c0094d1
6de942908726480fb2919ed1f1b7906a63ec576d qa: Changes v0.17.1 to v0.17.2 (nthumann)
Pull request description:
As of 0374e821bd v0.17.2 is downloaded instead of v0.17.1 for functional testing. This causes `test/functional/feature_backwards_compatibility.py` to fail, because it [requires](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/test/functional/feature_backwards_compatibility.py#L57) v0.17.1.
Steps to reproduce:
Run `test/get_previous_releases.py -b v0.19.1 v0.18.1 v0.17.1 v0.16.3 v0.15.2`. It cannot be downloaded at all because the sha256sum is missing [here](c1e0c2ad3b/test/get_previous_releases.py (L23)).
Or adjust the command and run `test/get_previous_releases.py -b v0.19.1 v0.18.1 v0.17.2 v0.16.3 v0.15.2`, then run `test/functional/test_runner.py feature_backwards_compatibility`. It´ll fail because the test is missing v0.17.1.
This PR changes v0.17.1 to v0.17.2 in this test and in a few comments.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK 6de942908726480fb2919ed1f1b7906a63ec576d
fanquake:
ACK 6de942908726480fb2919ed1f1b7906a63ec576d - looks correct. Surprised this wasn't caught/part of #19813. In future you could add any explanations & extra info as part of your commit message as well (even though PR descriptions are included as part of the merge).
Tree-SHA512: bbe50c4fd5c1aedd6dc1cdc3d93ef9005db1c67adca3f263b6b0d869c40b495a3221e706c9389fedea4748e31911dbd591062f60ce9836e58099fbdd9515b4d9
0374e821bd9e9498ce9c03aa8e5435870019978b util: Hard code previous release tarball checksums (Hennadii Stepanov)
bd897ce79f72a44a2e609f95433e251a3fd9eb9c scripted-diff: Move previous_release.py to test/get_previous_releases.py (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
#19205 introduced signature verifying for the downloaded `SHA256SUMS.asc`.
This approach is brittle and does not work in CI environment for many reasons:
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19812#issuecomment-680760663
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19013#discussion_r459590779
This PR:
- implements **Sjors**' [idea](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19205#pullrequestreview-426080048):
> Alternatively we might as well hard code the checksum for each `tar.gz` release in the source code, here.
- is an alternative to 5a2c31e528e6bd60635096f233252f3c717f366d (#19013)
- fixes#19812
- updates v0.17.1 to v0.17.2
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
cr ACK 0374e821bd9e9498ce9c03aa8e5435870019978b
Sjors:
tACK 0374e821bd9e9498ce9c03aa8e5435870019978b
Tree-SHA512: cacdcf9f5209eae7da357abb3445585ad2f980920fd5bf75527ce89974d3f531a4cf8b5b35edfc116b23bfdfb45c0437cb14cbc416d76ed2dc5b9e6d33cdad71
d135c294764add81683ba47575f9a5dde7d7c07f [ci] make list of previous releases to download a setting (Sjors Provoost)
9c246b873c74834a121edba00fcaecf0cba6f9b4 [test] backwards compatibility: bump v0.19.0.1 to v0.19.1 (Sjors Provoost)
89a28e02fa46f3d5eb07ab02aa34aa95c6fcee11 [test] add v0.16.3 backwards compatibility test (Sjors Provoost)
Pull request description:
Thanks to #18774's `adjust_bitcoin_conf_for_pre_17` we can now test backwards compatibility for v0.16.3, both for sync and loading a recent wallet.
This PR bumps v0.19.0.1 to v0.19.1.
I also made the version list consistent for the `contrib/devtools/previous_release.sh` instruction, between both tests.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK d135c294764add81683ba47575f9a5dde7d7c07f
Tree-SHA512: 5ff137a7a934237fa220f1c2807ce9abeeb75929266558bf3e4045bec7dfcd0a8747fa74d700065c568330b18badf58c60c308eb13d1eed444d4bbfe6decc48b
16d4b3fd6d5aad18ebb731a5006a15180d3661ef test: mempool.dat compatibility between versions (Ivan Metlushko)
Pull request description:
Rationale: Verify mempool.dat compatibility between versions
The format of mempool.dat has been changed in #18038
The tests verifies the fix made in #18807 and ensures that the file format is compatible between current version and v0.19.1
The test verifies both backward and forward compatibility.
This PR also adds a log when we fail to add a tx loaded from mempool.dat.
It was useful when debugging this test and could be potentially useful to debug other scenarios as well.
Closes#19037
ACKs for top commit:
Sjors:
tACK 16d4b3fd6d5aad18ebb731a5006a15180d3661ef
Tree-SHA512: 00a38bf528c6478cb0da467af216488f83c1e3ca4d9166c109202ea8284023e99d87a3d6e252c4d88d08d9b5ed1a730b3e1970d6e5c0aef526fa7ced40de7490
c0c43ae1471347ea93614e9a25989f13b021f8a8 test: skip backwards compat tests if not compiled with wallet (fanquake)
Pull request description:
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: d9975a1490e69134408b6b724cea26a6c1397d43f59850283b9e338ae38e00fefbcd868fb141e0a4bb55f02076690a99331f29cfa2d0fa66c165032b24a94081
c456145b2c65f580683df03bf10cd39000cf24d5 [test] add 0.19 backwards compatibility tests (Sjors Provoost)
b769cd142deda74fe46e231cc7b687a86514f2f1 [test] add v0.17.1 wallet upgrade test (Sjors Provoost)
9d9390dab716f07057c94e8e21f3c7dd06192f35 [tests] add wallet backwards compatility tests (Sjors Provoost)
c7ca6308968b29a0e0edc485cd06e68e5edb7c7d [scripts] support release candidates of earlier releases (Sjors Provoost)
8b1460dbd1b732f06d4cebe1fa6844286c7a0056 [tests] check v0.17.1 and v0.18.1 backwards compatibility (Sjors Provoost)
ae379cf7d12943fc192d58176673bcfe7d53da53 [scripts] build earlier releases (Sjors Provoost)
Pull request description:
This PR adds binaries for 0.17, 0.18 and 0.19 to Travis and runs a basic block propagation test.
Includes test for upgrading v0.17.1 wallets and opening master wallets with older versions.
Usage:
```sh
contrib/devtools/previous_release.sh -f -b v0.19.0.1 v0.18.1 v0.17.1
test/functional/backwards_compatibility.py
```
Travis caches these earlier releases, so it should be able to run these tests with little performance impact.
Additional scenarios where it might be useful to run tests against earlier releases:
* creating a wallet with #11403's segwit implementation, copying it to an older node and making sure the user didn't lose any funds (although this PR doesn't support `v0.15.1`)
* future consensus changes
* P2P changes (e.g. to make sure we don't accidentally ban old nodes)
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK c456145b2c65f580683df03bf10cd39000cf24d5 🔨
Tree-SHA512: 360bd870603f95b14dc0cd629532cc147344f632b808617c18e1b585dfb1f082b401e5d493a48196b719e0aeaee533ae0a773dfc9f217f704aae898576c19232
## Motivation
CoinJoin's subsystems are initialized by variables and managers that
occupy the global context. The _extent_ to which these subsystems
entrench themselves into the codebase is difficult to assess and moving
them out of the global context forces us to enumerate the subsystems in
the codebase that rely on CoinJoin logic and enumerate the order in
which components are initialized and destroyed.
Keeping this in mind, the scope of this pull request aims to:
* Reduce the amount of CoinJoin-specific entities present in the global
scope
* Make the remaining usage of these entities in the global scope
explicit and easily searchable
## Additional Information
* The initialization of `CCoinJoinClientQueueManager` is dependent on
blocks-only mode being disabled (which can be alternatively interpreted
as enabling the relay of transactions). The same applies to
`CBlockPolicyEstimator`, which `CCoinJoinClientQueueManager` depends.
Therefore, `CCoinJoinClientQueueManager` is only initialized if
transaction relaying is enabled and so is its scheduled maintenance
task. This can be found by looking at `init.cpp`
[here](93f8df1c31/src/init.cpp (L1681-L1683)),
[here](93f8df1c31/src/init.cpp (L2253-L2255))
and
[here](93f8df1c31/src/init.cpp (L2326-L2327)).
For this reason, `CBlockPolicyEstimator` is not a member of `CJContext`
and its usage is fulfilled by passing it as a reference when
initializing the scheduling task.
* `CJClientManager` has not used `CConnman` or `CTxMemPool` as `const`
as existing code that is outside the scope of this PR would cast away
constness, which would be unacceptable. Furthermore, some logical paths
are taken that will grind to a halt if they are stored as `const`.
Examples of such a call chains would be:
* `CJClientManager::DoMaintenance >
CCoinJoinClientManager::DoMaintenance > DoAutomaticDenominating >
CCoinJoinClientSession::DoAutomaticDenominating >
CCoinJoinClientSession::StartNewQueue > CConnman::AddPendingMasternode`
which modifies `CConnman::vPendingMasternodes`, which is non-const
behaviour
* `CJClientManager::DoMaintenance >
CCoinJoinClientManager::DoMaintenance > DoAutomaticDenominating >
CCoinJoin::IsCollateralValid > AcceptToMemoryPool` which adds a
transaction to the memory pool, which is non-const behaviour
* There were cppcheck [linter
failures](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5337#issuecomment-1685084688)
that seemed to be caused by the usage of `Assert` in
`coinjoin/client.h`. This seems to be resolved by backporting
[bitcoin#24714](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24714). (Thanks
@knst!)
* Depends on #5546
---------
Co-authored-by: Kittywhiskers Van Gogh <63189531+kittywhiskers@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
Move funds from the coinbase, into the Asset Lock Pool. This is to incentivize MNs to upgrade to platform, because only MNs running platform will get these migrated rewards
## 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>
a6739cc86827759c543bf81f5532ec46e40549c3 rpc: Add specific error code for "wallet already loaded" (Wladimir J. van der Laan)
Pull request description:
Add a separate RPC error code for "wallet already loaded" to avoid having to match on message to detect this.
Requested by shesek for rust-bitcoinrpc.
If concept ACKed needs:
- [ ] Release note
- [x] A functional test (updated the existing test to make it pass, I think this is enough)
ACKs for top commit:
jonasschnelli:
Code Review ACK a6739cc86827759c543bf81f5532ec46e40549c3
promag:
Code review ACK a6739cc86827759c543bf81f5532ec46e40549c3.
Tree-SHA512: 9091872e6ea148aec733705d6af330f72a02f23b936b892ac28f9023da7430af6332418048adbee6014305b812316391812039e9180f7f3362d11f206c13b7d0
fa39c8a3e8f1090103468780d122a4cf4191bc13 test: Work around libFuzzer deadlock (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Only required part is `symbolize=0`, but the other changes shouldn't hurt
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
cr ACK fa39c8a3e8f1090103468780d122a4cf4191bc13: patch looks correct
Tree-SHA512: 9cddf1de46ad12aea9b8be2c1acb86ba0e07ffdb52f8155d943edf970955551c7cb049a3a6c027846b45dab0dc0966dec42999476ebde50aa761a08dbb751eae
bfa9309ad606102f24c9bd3c33dfe78949f09418 Use COINBASE_MATURITY constant in functional tests. (Kiminuo)
525448df9dc2ab6b7e960ff138956ae3e2efdf60 Move COINBASE_MATURITY from `feature_nulldummy` test to `blocktools`. (Kiminuo)
Pull request description:
`COINBASE_MATURITY` constant was added to `feature_nulldummy` test in #21373. This PR moves the constant to `blocktools.py` file and uses the constant in more tests as suggested [here](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21373#discussion_r605418462).
Edit: Goal of this PR is to replace integer constants with `COINBASE_MATURITY` but not necessarily in *all* cases because that would mean to read and fully understand all tests. That's out of my time constraints. Any reports where `COINBASE_MATURITY` should be used are welcome though!
ACKs for top commit:
theStack:
ACK bfa9309ad606102f24c9bd3c33dfe78949f09418 🌇
Tree-SHA512: 01f04645f05a39028681f355cf3d42dd63ea3303f76d93c430e0fdce441934358a2d847a54e6068d61932f1b75e1d406f51859b057b3e4b569f7083915cb317f
92e28fa8b2590cce0e8f0adadae80e46cb63a9ef test: remove unused constants in functional tests (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This mini-PR gets rid of constants in functional tests that are not used anymore. Found by [vulture ](https://pypi.org/project/vulture/)via the following script that has been lying around here locally for quite some time (I think it was once proposed by practicalswift, but I don't remember the concrete topic/PR):
```
#!/bin/sh
for F in $(git ls-files -- "*.py"); do vulture "$F" | grep "unused variable"; done
```
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK 92e28fa8b2590cce0e8f0adadae80e46cb63a9ef: patch looks correct.
Tree-SHA512: 16516abc8014207bcefdf0545dffaecff1fbba66f45b54c02371dcfd1f18194855c6b72598c11b5407009561eafe8048d47af3471f0efb1795d52477d5a0232e
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Current implementation of MnEhfTx is not matched with DIP-0023, this PR
fixes it. It is a prior work for
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5469
## What was done?
- requestID is fixed from `clsig{quorumHeight}` to `mnhf{versionBit}` +
fixes for signature validation properly
- v20 is minimal height to accept MnEHF special transactions
- versionBit is not BLS version - removed unrelated wrong code and
validations
- TxMempool will accept MnEHF transaction even if inputs/outputs are
zeroes and no fee
- implemented python's serialization/deserialization of MnEHF
transactions for future using in functional tests
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run functional/unit tests. Beside that there's new functional test in
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5469 that actually test format of
transaction and signature validation - to be merged later.
## Breaking Changes
Payload of MnEhf tx is changed, related consensus rules are changed.
## 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
89bdad5b25ae4ac03a486f729a5b58ae6f21946d RPC/Wallet: unloadwallet: Allow specifying wallet_name param matching RPC endpoint (Luke Dashjr)
Pull request description:
Allow specifying the `wallet_name` param to `unloadwallet` on RPC wallet endpoints, so long as it matches the endpoint wallet.
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
ACK 89bdad5b25ae4ac03a486f729a5b58ae6f21946d
MarcoFalke:
review ACK 89bdad5b25ae4ac03a486f729a5b58ae6f21946d
Tree-SHA512: efb399c33f7b5596870a26a8680f453ca47aa7a6db4e550f9435d13044f1c4bad0ae11e8f0205213409d08b75c4188c3be782e54aafab1f65b97eb8cf5c252a9
c92387232f750397da7d131f262c150a608408c2 refactor: Extract ParseOpCode from ParseScript (João Barbosa)
Pull request description:
Seems more natural to have `mapOpNames` "hidden" in `ParseOpCode` than in `ParseScript`.
A second lookup in `mapOpNames` is also removed.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK c92387232f750397da7d131f262c150a608408c2
theStack:
re-ACK c92387232f750397da7d131f262c150a608408c2
Tree-SHA512: d59d1964760622cf365479d44e3e676aa0bf46b60e77160140d967e012042df92121d3224c7551dc96eff5ff3294598cc6bade82adb3f60d28810e18e60e1257
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
The logic for additional indexes is incomplete, handling of P2PK on
block disconnect is broken (luckily no one is using P2PK and reorgs are
rare) and there are a few other small issues that would be nice to have
fixed.
## What was done?
Pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run `feature_dbcrash.py`, it should succeed (NOTE: it takes ~30 minutes
to complete, that's normal).
Run `feature_addressindex.py`, `feature_timestampindex.py` and
`feature_spentindex.py` (and other tests) should still succeed too.
## 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
- [ ] 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)_
8f5dc8800aeb524eee2fa2451cd22883b7b2bfec test: display command line options passed to send_cli() in debug log (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
as per https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18691#discussion_r411382589, and revert two cli calls changed in #18691 from rpc commands back to command line options (these were the only occurrences).
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK 8f5dc8800aeb524eee2fa2451cd22883b7b2bfec
Tree-SHA512: fcb3eca00aa4099066028c90d5e50a02e074366e09a17f5f5b937d9f7562dd054ff65681aa0ad4c94f6de1e98b1e2b9ac4cd084ddc297010253989a80483b1b9
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
This is an implementation of DIP0027 "Credit Asset Locks".
It's a mechanism to fluidly exchange between Dash and credits.
## What was done?
This pull request includes:
- Asset Lock transaction
- Asset Unlock transaction (withdrawal)
- Credit Pool in coinbase
- Unit tests for Asset Lock/Unlock tx
- New functional test `feature_asset_locks.py`
RPC: currently locked amount (credit pool) is available through rpc call
`getblock`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
There added new unit tests for basic checks of transaction validity
(asset lock/unlock).
Also added new functional test "feature_asset_locks.py" that cover
typical cases, but not all corner cases yet.
## Breaking Changes
This feature should be activated as hard-fork because:
- It adds 2 new special transaction and one of them [asset unlock tx]
requires update consensus rulels
- It adds new data in coinbase tx (credit pool)
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**To release DIP 0027**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
V19 is active on mainnet/testnet now, no need to check activation bits
anymore. This PR also bumps `MinBIP9WarningHeight` to
post-v19-activation height which should stop `unknown new rules
activated (versionbit 8)` warning from appearing.
## What was done?
Bury v19, bump `MinBIP9WarningHeight`
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run tests, reindex on mainnet/testnet.
## 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)_
5aadd4be1883386a04bef6a04e9a1142601ef7a7 Convert amounts from float to decimal (Prayank)
Pull request description:
> decimal is preferred in accounting applications
https://docs.python.org/3.8/library/decimal.html
Decimal type saves an exact value so better than using float.
~~3 variables declared with type as 'Decimal' in [test/functional/mempool_accept.py](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/test/functional/mempool_accept.py): fee, fee_expected, output_amount~~
~~Not required to convert to string anymore for using the above variables as decimal~~
+ fee, fee_expected, output_amount
~~+ 8 decimal places~~
+ Using value of coin['amount'] as decimal and removed 'int'
+ Removed unnecessary parentheses
+ Remove str() and use quotes
Fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20011
ACKs for top commit:
guggero:
ACK 5aadd4be1883386a04bef6a04e9a1142601ef7a7
Tree-SHA512: 5877cf3837e5b65bec0fc8909de141a720bfa02a747513e21d20f3c41ec0cfecc524d2c347a96596b0a1a97900da2acf08b799f26b11d537e4dcddc6ce45f38e
0956e46bff7f0b6da65a4de6d4f8261fe9d7055c test: use zero-argument super() shortcut (Python 3.0+) (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This mini-PR replaces all calls to `super(...)` with arguments with the zero-argument shortcut `super()` where applicable. See [PEP 3135](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3135/#specification):
> The new syntax:
>
> super()
>
> is equivalent to:
>
> super(__class__, <firstarg>)
>
> where __class__ is the class that the method was defined in, and <firstarg> is
> the first parameter of the method (normally self for instance methods, and cls
> for class methods).
ACKs for top commit:
fanquake:
ACK 0956e46bff7f0b6da65a4de6d4f8261fe9d7055c
Tree-SHA512: 4ac66fe7ab2be2e8a514e5fcfc41dbb298f21b23ebb7b7b0310d704b0b3cef8adf287a8d80346d1ea9418998c597b4f0ff1f66148d0d806bb43db6607e0fe1cf
a2324e4d3f47f084b07a364c9a360a0bf31e86a0 test: Improve naming and logging of avoid_reuse tests (Fabian Jahr)
1abbdac6777bc5396d17a6772c8176a354730997 wallet: Prefer full destination groups in coin selection (Fabian Jahr)
Pull request description:
Fixes#17603 (together with #17843)
In the case of destination groups of >10 outputs existing in a wallet with `avoid_reuse` enabled, the grouping algorithm is adding left-over outputs as an "incomplete" group to the list of groups even when a full group has already been added. This leads to the strange behavior that if there are >10 outputs for a destination the transaction spending from that will effectively use `len(outputs) % 10` as inputs for that transaction.
From the original PR and the code comment I understand the correct behavior should be the usage of 10 outputs. I opted for minimal changes in the current code although there maybe optimizations possible for cases with >20 outputs on a destination this sounds like too much of an edge case right now.
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
Re-ACK a2324e4
achow101:
ACK a2324e4d3f47f084b07a364c9a360a0bf31e86a0
kallewoof:
ACK a2324e4d3f47f084b07a364c9a360a0bf31e86a0
meshcollider:
Tested ACK a2324e4d3f47f084b07a364c9a360a0bf31e86a0 (verified the new test fails on master without this change)
Tree-SHA512: 4743779c5d469fcd16df5baf166024b1d3c8eaca151df1e8281b71df62b29541cf7bfee3f8ab48d83e3b34c9256e53fd38a7b146a54c79f9caa44cce3636971a
25dac9fa65243ca8db02df22f484039c08114401 doc: add release notes for explicit fee estimators and bumpfee change (Karl-Johan Alm)
05227a35545d7656450874b3668bf418c73813fb tests for bumpfee / estimate_modes (Karl-Johan Alm)
3404c1b753432c4859a4ca245f01c240610a00cb policy: optional FeeEstimateMode param to CFeeRate::ToString (Karl-Johan Alm)
6fcf4484302d13bd7739b617470d8c8e31974908 rpc/wallet: add two explicit modes to estimate_mode (Karl-Johan Alm)
b188d80c2de9ebb114da5ceea78baa46bde7dff6 MOVEONLY: Make FeeEstimateMode available to CFeeRate (Karl-Johan Alm)
5d1a411eb12fc700804ffe5d6e205234d30edd5f fees: add FeeModes doc helper function (Karl-Johan Alm)
91f6d2bc8ff4d4cd1b86daa370ec9d2d9662394d rpc/wallet: add conf_target as alias to confTarget in bumpfee (Karl-Johan Alm)
69158b41fc488e4f220559da17a475eff5923a95 added CURRENCY_ATOM to express minimum indivisible unit (Karl-Johan Alm)
Pull request description:
This lets users pick their own fees when using `sendtoaddress`/`sendmany` if they prefer this over the estimators.
ACKs for top commit:
Sjors:
re-utACK 25dac9fa65: rebased, more fancy C++,
jonatack:
ACK 25dac9fa65243ca8db02df2 I think this should be merged after all this time, even though it looks to me like there are needed follow-ups, fixes and test coverage to be added (see further down), which I don't mind helping out with, if wanted.
fjahr:
Code review ACK 25dac9fa65243ca8db02df22f484039c08114401
Tree-SHA512: f31177e6cabf3187a43cdfe93477144f8e8385c7344613743cbbd16e8490d53ff5144aec7b9de6c9a65eb855b55e0f99d7f164dee4b6bf3cfea4dce51cf11d33
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Implementation of Randomness Beacon Part 3.
Starting from v20 activation fork, members for quorums are sorted using
(if available) the best CL signature found in Coinbase.
If no CL signature is present yet, then the usual way is used (By using
Blockhash instead)
The actual new way to shuffle is already implemented in
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5366.
SPV clients also need to calculate members, but they only know block
headers.
Since Coinbase is in the actual block, then they lack the required
information to correctly calculate quorum members.
## What was done?
- Message `MNLISTIDFF` is enriched with a new field `quorumsCLSigs`.
This field holds the Chainlock Signature required for each set of
indexes corresponding to quorums in field `newQuorums`.
- Protocol version has been bumped to `70230`.
- Clients with protocol version greater or equal to `70230` will receive
the new field `quorumsCLSigs`.
- The same field is returned in `protx diff` RPC.
Note:
- Field `quorumsCLSigs` will populated only after v20 activation
- If for one or more quorums, no non-null CL sig was found in CbTx then
a null signature is returned in `quorumsCLSigs`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Functional test mininode's protocol version was bumped to `70230`.
- `feature_llmq_rotation.py` checks that `quorumsCLSigs` match in both
P2P and RPC messages.
## 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: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
It splits from https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5150/ by
@PastaPastaPasta request.
## What was done?
See commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional 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
b1f59d55d920d2b35269b474762f94fec87bfb16 RPC/Wallet: unloadwallet: Clarify docs/error when both the RPC endpoint and wallet_name parameter specify a wallet (Luke Dashjr)
Pull request description:
Just documentation clarifications from #20448
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
review ACK b1f59d55d920d2b35269b474762f94fec87bfb16
jonatack:
re-ACK b1f59d55d920d2b35269b474762f94fec87bfb16 per `git diff e8303a0 b1f59d5`
Tree-SHA512: ac068b0aa7ceed49496367fdd9425b59dbba18b56e89b26afc22a6c8ece51f0b92a169cacd55740b1cadab2b32f4f8e8700e609066ab7e59d3b53c7891da585e
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Allow generating 12, 18, 24 words mnemonics. Default to 12 words as it's
the most popular option/de-facto a standard now imo.
## What was done?
Add `-mnemonicbits` option, add tests
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, play with wallets on regtest
## Breaking Changes
n/a, old wallets should not be affected
## 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
Given the hard fork that happened on testnet, there is now lots of the
transactions that were made on the fork that is no longer valid. Some
transactions could be relayed and mined again but some like coinjoin
mixing won't be relayed because of 0 fee and transactions spending
coinbases from the forked branch are no longer valid at all.
## What was done?
Introduce `wipewallettxes` RPC and `wipetxes` command for `dash-wallet`
tool to be able to get rid of some/all txes in the wallet.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, use rpc/command on testnet wallet
## 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
Version field should always be the first field of a message for better
readibility.
## What was done?
- Introduced new protocol version `MNLISTDIFF_VERSION_ORDER` (`70229`).
- `nVersion` serialisation order is changed for clients with protocol
version greater than or equal to `70229`.
- For clients with protocol version >= `70225` and < `70229` the old
order is used: can be deprecated in the future.
- Increased functional test P2P mininode's protocol version to `70229`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_llmq_rotation.py` with new protocol version.
## 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
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Disabled or non-enforced Chainlocks does not mean you can safely mine
non-locked txes, you could end up mining a block that is going to be
rejected by everyone else if a conflicting tx (missing on your node)
would be IS-locked. I can't find any reason why we have this besides "if
Chainlocks are disabled then smth is wrong so let them all be mined" but
we have spork_2 and spork_3 to control IS behaviour and we check them in
`IsTxSafeForMining` already, that would be a much more straightforward
way to deal with a potential issue.
Noticed this while reviewing #5150 and also while testing v19.2 during
recent testnet v19 re-fork.
## What was done?
Drop this check, adjust tests
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run tests locally
## Breaking Changes
Not quote breaking changes but a change in behaviour: with CLs disabled
it will now take 10 minutes for non-locked txes to be mined, same as
when CLs are enabled.
## 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
Mobile wallets would have to convert 4k+ pubkeys at the V19 fork point
and it's a pretty hard job for them that can easily take 10-15 seconds
if not more. Also after the HF, if a masternode list is requested from
before the HF, the operator keys come in basic scheme, but the
merkelroot was calculated with legacy. From mobile team work it wasn't
possible to convert all operator keys to legacy and then calculate the
correct merkleroot.
~This PR builds on top of ~#5392~ #5403 (changes that belong to this PR:
26f7e966500bdea4c604f1d16716b40b366fc707 and
4b42dc8fcee3354afd82ce7e3a72ebe1659f5f22) and aims to solve both of
these issues.~
cc @hashengineering @QuantumExplorer
## What was done?
Introduce `nVersion` on p2p level for every CSimplifiedMNListEntry. Set
`nVersion` to the same value we have it in CDeterministicMNState i.e.
pubkey serialization would not be via basic scheme only after the V19
fork, it would match the way it’s serialized on-chain/in
CDeterministicMNState for that specific MN.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests
## Breaking Changes
NOTE: `testnet` is going to re-fork at v19 forkpoint because
`merkleRootMNList` is not going to match
## 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
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
451b96f7d2796d00eabaec56d831f9e9b1a569cc test: kill process group to avoid dangling processes (S3RK)
Pull request description:
This is an alternative to #19281
This PR fixes a problem when after test failure with `--failfast` option there could be dangling nodes. The nodes will continue to occupy rpc/p2p ports on the machine and will cause further test failures.
If there are any dangling nodes left at the end of the test run we kill the whole process group.
Pros: the operations is immediate and won't lead to CI timeout
Cons: the test_runner process is also killed and exit code is 137
Example output:
```
...
Early exiting after test failure
TEST | STATUS | DURATION
rpc_decodescript.py | ✓ Passed | 2 s
rpc_deprecated.py | ✓ Passed | 2 s
rpc_deriveaddresses.py | ✓ Passed | 2 s
rpc_dumptxoutset.py | ✖ Failed | 2 s
ALL | ✖ Failed | 8 s (accumulated)
Runtime: 4 s
Killed: 9
> echo $?
137
```
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
review ACK 451b96f7d2796d00eabaec56d831f9e9b1a569cc
aitorjs:
ACK 451b96f7d2796d00eabaec56d831f9e9b1a569cc. Manual testing with and without **--failfast**.
Tree-SHA512: 87e510a1411b9e7571e63cf7ffc8b9a8935daf9112ffc0f069d6c406ba87743ec439808181f7e13cb97bb200fad528589786c47f0b43cf3a2ef0d06a23cb86dd
fa92af5af39a08982f785542df5419d6d5a4706d ci: Run feature_block and feature_abortnode in valgrind (MarcoFalke)
fa01febeaf801bade77a613e64f18b556ae16d86 test: Remove ci timeout restriction in test_runner (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Also revert commit 0a4912e46a, because some tests take too long for this to be useful anymore.
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: 363f14766e1f4a5860ab668a516b41acebc6fbdf11d8defb3a95a772dbf82304ca1f5f14b1dbad97f2029503e03d92e8c69df0466a8872409c20665838f617ed
4444edc2e6671d3f73de3725447130f73ecf0375 ci: Enable all functional tests in valgrind (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
The travis timeout for our repo has been bumped to 2h, so we can run all tests in valgrind now
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK 4444edc2e6671d3f73de3725447130f73ecf0375 -- regarding the three disabled cases (`feature_abortnode`, `feature_block` and `rpc_bind`): not a big deal since MSan will take care of those once #18288 is merged. More is more :)
Tree-SHA512: ea2f798112911b6d1f3d88cfcdf0a7cdb698687248343703d6fe55da144542c961c15d888bffb41672c10aa76765615cb7c7ff93d468bfad3c51f962f24e7abb
