## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
1. we need to move time forward to let invs being relayed
2. nNextInvSend in SendMessages can be bumped up to 30+ seconds into the
future in rare cases
make sure timeouts in tests are high enough to relay tx inv/wait for
corresponding islock
## What was done?
tl;dr: bump mocktime while waiting, wait longer
extracted fixes from https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5288 but I
expect this to fix other sporadic test failures too
## How Has This Been Tested?
tests are ok locally and in https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5288
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
should hopefully fix some sporadic ci test failures (like
https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/jobs/4052206622#L1962)
## What was done?
tweaked dynamically_add/update functions to make checks more consistent
and avoid some edge cases, pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_llmq_hpmn.py` and `feature_dip3_v19.py` still work locally,
let's see if ci is now (constantly) happy about these too...
## 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
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Mainnet activation start time is set to: `Tuesday, April 25, 2023
0:00:00`,
and timeout to: `Thursday, April 25, 2024 0:00:00`
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Added a new label showing the number of total and enabled HPMN.
The existing label was updated to show the number of total and enabled
regular MNs instead.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Not having them in the list is 1. wrong 2. creates empty entries in
results (nullptr-s)
Should fix crashes like
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5287#issuecomment-1498518599
## What was done?
Add missing entries
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run dash-qt on testnet, wait when a HPMN is the payee. develop - crash,
this PR - no crash.
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
vote thresholds were counted incorrectly
## What was done?
switch from `GetValidMNsCount()` to `GetValidWeightedMNsCount()`
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
The `<stdexcept>` include is needed for `std::runtime_error` definition.
The `<cstdint>` include is needed for `uint8_t` and `uint32_t`
definition.
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Compilation failure with GCC 13.
GCC 13 is more strict about missing includes that were included
indirectly by previous versions of GCC.
## What was done?
Added missing includes.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Successful compilation on Fedora 38 with GCC 13. All tests passed
successfully.
## 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
Signed-off-by: Oleg Girko <ol@infoserver.lv>
Co-authored-by: Oleg Girko <ol@infoserver.lv>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
fix typos in getrawtransaction and decoderawtransaction help texts
## What was done?
tweak field name to match
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/develop/src/core_write.cpp#L192
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Masternodes tab was showing UNKNOWN next payment for some enabled MNs
reported by @kxcd aka xkcd
## What was done?
ask for the maximum data available, let GetProjectedMNPayees crop it
## How Has This Been Tested?
run dash-qt, check the list on Masternodes tab
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
should fix "qdata: Already received" discouraging issue
the root of the issue is that we remove expired requests on
UpdatedBlockTip which is too late sometimes.
## What was done?
replacing expired requests with a new one in RequestQuorumData kind of
does the same (drops the expired request) but without waiting for
UpdatedBlockTip
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
RPC help has a wrongly generated RPC help output in CLI and online help:
https://dashcore.readme.io/docs/core-api-ref-remote-procedure-calls-wallet#getwalletinfo
New version:
```
...
"hdaccounts" : [ (json array)
{ (json object)
"hdaccountindex" : n, (numeric) the index of the account
"hdexternalkeyindex" : n, (numeric) current external childkey index
"hdinternalkeyindex" : n (numeric) current internal childkey index
},
...
],
...
```
against old version:
```
...
"" : [ (json array)
{ (json object)
"hdaccountindex" : n, (numeric) the index of the account
"hdexternalkeyindex" : n, (numeric) current external childkey index
"hdinternalkeyindex" : n (numeric) current internal childkey index
},
...
],
...
```
## What was done?
Add a missing name `hdaccounts` for that key for `getwalletinfo` RPC
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run a command `help getwalletinfo` for old and for new versions.
## Breaking Changes
No breaking changes. It doesn't change rpc, only change text description
(help).
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
add a bias to IsExpired to avoid potential timing issues where nodeA thinks it's been 300 seconds but nodeB only thinks it's been 295 for some reason
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
fix `p2p_quorum_data.py` test broken by #5276
## What was done?
adjust data request expiration timeout in tests
## How Has This Been Tested?
`./test/functional/test_runner.py p2p_quorum_data.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
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Added logs with requested parameters (`llmqType`, `quorumHash`,
`proRegTx`) when sending `qgetdata` for better troubleshooting.
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`GetProjectedMNPayees` wasn't projecting MN payees correctly.
## What was done?
HPMNs are now added 4 times before sorting the return list.
In addition, the case of last payee being HPMN and having still pending
payments is handled.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Tested on Masternodes / Next Payment tab on Qt client on 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Added RPC `cleardiscouraged` which clears internally the list of
discouraged peers.
Note: Implementation of a `listdiscouraged` RPC is not possible because
the internal data structure used for discouraged peers is a Bloom
filter.
## 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
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently, we store internally the nodes that already requested
`QGETDATA` for the same Quorum.
If data for the same Quorum is requested twice from the same `proRegTx`,
then the requester is P2P misbehaved.
## What was done?
Some data like `VerificationVector` and `EncryptedContributions` are not
instantly available.
This PR does not misbehave nodes for requesting data that weren't
available when asked.
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
We are seeing lots of "invalid mnauth" on testnet.. We should be logging
this anyhow
## What was done?
Add some logging the the mnauth sig isn't valid
## How Has This Been Tested?
make check
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Keeping too many triggers on testnet and syncing them can result in p2p
bans because some of these triggers might be invalid already. Limiting
their lifetime should help.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Automation in private dashevo GitHub was failing due to the branch
trying to be built not having the automation be the newer tagged based
system. as such, if you simply tag a commit from the dashpay repo and
try to build it using automation, the build would fail. This should
resolve the issue. Recommended to BP so that we don't have this issue
when building v19.x branch builds
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
Creating a docker image should now be as simple pushing a branch and tag
to dashevo/dash; start the automation on branch develop with tag
previously specified
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
We reset operator info on revocation; but then on replacement via new
register we try to "RemoveMN", which tries to remove platformNodeID but
that's already been cleared
## What was done?
Only try to delete platformNodeID if it's non-null
## How Has This Been Tested?
Mined with it on testnet; mining works
## Breaking Changes
This will fork off other testnet nodes, as this fixes the logic
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: Odysseas Gabrielides <odysseas.gabrielides@gmail.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
These messages are pretty annoying on reindex and shouldn't really be
shown in logs unless you actually need to debug mn payments.
## What was done?
move messages under `MNPAYMENTS` debug category
## How Has This Been Tested?
reindex
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
Provide a general summary of your changes in the Title above
Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it
improves
Dash Core user experience or Dash Core developer experience
significantly:
* Any test improvements or new tests that improve coverage are always
welcome.
* All other changes should have accompanying unit tests (see
`src/test/`) or
functional tests (see `test/`). Contributors should note which tests
cover
modified code. If no tests exist for a region of modified code, new
tests
should accompany the change.
* Bug fixes are most welcome when they come with steps to reproduce or
an
explanation of the potential issue as well as reasoning for the way the
bug
was fixed.
* Features are welcome, but might be rejected due to design or scope
issues.
If a feature is based on a lot of dependencies, contributors should
first
consider building the system outside of Dash Core, if possible.
-->
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
<!--- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? -->
<!--- If it fixes an open issue, please link to the issue here. -->
Before this fix, uniqueness of HPMN `platformNodeID` was checked only
while processing a block containing a `ProRegTx` or a `ProUpServTx`.
This is not enough as a `ProRegTx` or `ProUpServTx` containing duplicate
HPMN `platformNodeID` must be rejected at tx broadcast level.
## What was done?
<!--- Describe your changes in detail -->
Checking uniqueness when calling respective RPC and when receiving such
txs.
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!--- Please describe in detail how you tested your changes. -->
<!--- Include details of your testing environment, and the tests you ran
to -->
<!--- see how your change affects other areas of the code, etc. -->
## Breaking Changes
<!--- Please describe any breaking changes your code introduces -->
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
This allows us to have a bit more granular control over GetLLMQ results,
removes code duplication and also optimises things a tiny bit by
replacing "HasLLMQ + GetLLMQParams" calls with simply "GetLLMQParams".
Use `optional` in `GetLLMQ`, drop `HasLLMQ`.
run tests, reindex on testnet/mainnet
n/a
- [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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Delayed activation to reexperience rc.6
## What was done?
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
HPMN fields were missing when selecting a HPMN in Masternodes tab of Qt
client.
## What was done?
Return HPMN fields in JSON reply of `CDeterministicMNState`.
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
When verifying signature of `CGovernanceVote`/`CGovernanceObject` we
need to use the active scheme.
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Removed protx_revoke_legacy since it required a BLS secret key and not a
BLS public key.
(BLS scheme is not applicable to secret keys)
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
Provide a general summary of your changes in the Title above
Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it
improves
Dash Core user experience or Dash Core developer experience
significantly:
* Any test improvements or new tests that improve coverage are always
welcome.
* All other changes should have accompanying unit tests (see
`src/test/`) or
functional tests (see `test/`). Contributors should note which tests
cover
modified code. If no tests exist for a region of modified code, new
tests
should accompany the change.
* Bug fixes are most welcome when they come with steps to reproduce or
an
explanation of the potential issue as well as reasoning for the way the
bug
was fixed.
* Features are welcome, but might be rejected due to design or scope
issues.
If a feature is based on a lot of dependencies, contributors should
first
consider building the system outside of Dash Core, if possible.
-->
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
<!--- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? -->
<!--- If it fixes an open issue, please link to the issue here. -->
## What was done?
<!--- Describe your changes in detail -->
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!--- Please describe in detail how you tested your changes. -->
<!--- Include details of your testing environment, and the tests you ran
to -->
<!--- see how your change affects other areas of the code, etc. -->
## Breaking Changes
<!--- Please describe any breaking changes your code introduces -->
## Checklist:
<!--- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`CDeterministicMNList` stores internally a map containing the hashes of
all properties that needed to be unique.
`pubKeyOperator` don't differ between the two schemes (legacy and
basic(v19)) but their serialisation do: hence their hash.
Because this internal map stores only hashes, then we need to
re-calculate hashes and repopulate.
So when we tried to revoke a masternode after the fork, the `ProUpRevTx`
couldn't be mined because the hash of the `pubKeyOperator` differed.
## What was done?
When retrieving a `CDeterministicMNList` for a given block, if v19 is
active for that block, then we repopulate the internal map.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Without this fix, `feature_dip3_v19.py` is failing with
`failed-calc-cb-mnmerkleroot` (Error encountered on 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
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Help text for protx legacy versions were adjusted.
## What was done?
## 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
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Block 847000 hf should happen somewhere around March 4th. We need mining
nodes to be upgraded to follow that chain and mine correct blocks.
However we don't want v19 to be activated shortly after (~300 blocks),
we want to give it a little bit of time to let (new) platform quorums
form and make sure everything is ok. With this patch we should have ~2
days (instead of half of a day).
## What was done?
bumped v19 activation start time to March 6th
## How Has This Been Tested?
n/a
## Breaking Changes
yes :)
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
