backport: Merge bitcoin#(partial) 21940,(partial) 22232,22505,22407,22510,22383,13533,22528,22538,22139 #5663
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
vijaydasmp
changed the title
vijaydasmp
changed the title
vijaydasmp
changed the title
vijaydasmp
force-pushed
the
bp23_2
branch
2 times, most recently
from
1013880 to
bb0d506
Compare
|
Hello @UdjinM6 @knst @PastaPastaPasta , please review |
UdjinM6
requested changes
Nov 9, 2023
vijaydasmp
changed the title
knst
approved these changes
Nov 12, 2023
| 1. Uninstall Guix itself according to the way you installed it. (e.g. `sudo apt | ||
| purge guix` for Ubuntu packaging, `sudo make uninstall` for | ||
| built-from-source). | ||
| 1. Uninstall Guix itself according to the way you installed it (e.g. `sudo apt |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should it be partial due to missing changes in doc/build-openbsd.md (depends on bitcoin#22335)
|
rebased from GH GUI to fix |
|
Hello @PastaPastaPasta |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
|
@knst wrong PR :) see #5677 (comment) |
|
Hello @UdjinM6 , https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/jobs/5562361219 has timed out, |
|
Hello @PastaPastaPasta , requesting review |
|
@PastaPastaPasta , requesting review |
|
please let me know if there are any further comments on this PR. @PastaPastaPasta @UdjinM6 @knst |
PastaPastaPasta
approved these changes
Dec 4, 2023
…tAddr const fae108c Fix incorrect whitespace in addrman (MarcoFalke) fa32024 Add missing GUARDED_BY to CAddrMan::insecure_rand (MarcoFalke) fab755b fuzz: Actually use const addrman (MarcoFalke) fae0c79 refactor: Mark CAddrMan::GetAddr const (MarcoFalke) fa02934 refactor: Mark CAddrMan::Select const (MarcoFalke) Pull request description: To clarify that a call to this only changes the random state and nothing else. ACKs for top commit: jnewbery: Code review ACK fae108c theStack: re-ACK fae108c 🍦 Tree-SHA512: 3ffb211d4715cc3daeb3bfcdb3fcc6b108ca96df5fa565510436fac0e8da86c93b30c9c4aad0563e27d84f615fcd729481072009a4e2360c8b3d40787ab6506a
…nt32_t instead of signed int fa621ed refactor: Pass script verify flags as uint32_t (MarcoFalke) Pull request description: The flags are cast to unsigned in the interpreter anyway, so avoid the confusion (and fuzz crashes) by just passing them as unsigned from the beginning. Also, the flags are often inverted bit-wise with the `~` operator, which also works on signed integers, but might cause confusion as the sign bit is flipped. Fixes bitcoin#22233 ACKs for top commit: theStack: Concept and code review ACK fa621ed kristapsk: ACK fa621ed jonatack: ACK fa621ed Tree-SHA512: ea0720f32f823fa7f075309978672aa39773c6019d12b6c1c9d611fc1983a76115b7fe2a28d50814673bb6415c311ccc05b99d6e871575fb6900faf75ed17769
…t from Good() f036dfb [addrman] Remove unused test_before_evict argument from Good() (John Newbery) Pull request description: This has never been used in the public interface method since it was introduced in bitcoin#9037. ACKs for top commit: lsilva01: Tested ACK bitcoin@f036dfb on Ubuntu 20.04. theStack: Code-review ACK f036dfb Tree-SHA512: 98145d9596b4ae1f354cfa561be1a54c6b8057c920e0ac3d4c1d42c9326b2dad2d44320f4171bb701d97088b216760cca8017b84c8b5dcd2b1dc8f158f28066d
20edf4b 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 20edf4b theStack: re-ACK 20edf4b 0xB10C: ACK 20edf4b kristapsk: ACK 20edf4b Zero-1729: re-ACK 20edf4b Tree-SHA512: 29a920cfff1ef53e0af601c3f93f8f9171f3be47fc84b0fa293cb865b824976e8c1510b17b27d17daf0b8e658dd77d9dc388373395f0919fc4a23cd5019642d5
…y in block chain' 2ebf2fe 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 2ebf2fe (ran linter, looked at changes and ran modified test and checked code in `src/node/transaction.cpp`) darosior: ACK 2ebf2fe Tree-SHA512: 8bfbd3ff3da0cb3b8745f69b8ca2377f85fa99f0270750840b60e6ae43b5645c5c59b236993e8b2ad0444ec4171484e4f1ee23fa7e81b79d4222bcb623666fa5
…ransaction 78f4c8b prefer to use txindex if available for GetTransaction (Jameson Lopp) Pull request description: Fixes bitcoin#22382 Motivation: prevent excessive disk reads if txindex is enabled. Worth noting that this could be argued to be less of a bug and more of an issue of undefined behavior. If a user calls GetTransaction with the wrong block hash, what should happen? ACKs for top commit: jonatack: ACK 78f4c8b theStack: Code review ACK 78f4c8b LarryRuane: tACK 78f4c8b luke-jr: utACK 78f4c8b jnewbery: utACK 78f4c8b rajarshimaitra: Code review ACK bitcoin@78f4c8b lsilva01: Code Review ACK and Tested ACK bitcoin@78f4c8b on Ubuntu 20.04 Tree-SHA512: af7db5b98cb2ae4897b28476b2fa243bf7e6f850750d9347062fe8013c5720986d1a3c808f80098e5289bd84b085de03c81a44e584dc28982f721c223651bfe0
…dationcache_tests c3e111a Reduced number of validations in `tx_validationcache_tests` to keep the run time reasonable. (lucash-dev) Pull request description: Following a suggestion in the comments, changed `ValidateCheckInputsForAllFlags` from testing all possible flag combinations to testing a random subset. Also created a new enum constant for the highest flag, so that this test doesn’t keep testing an incomplete subset in case a new flag is added. Timing for `checkinputs_test`: ``` Before: 6.8s After: 3.7s ---------------- Saved: 3.1s (45%) ``` This PR was split from bitcoin#13050. Also see bitcoin#10026. ACKs for top commit: leonardojobim: tACK bitcoin@c3e111a. kallewoof: ACK c3e111a theStack: re-ACK c3e111a Tree-SHA512: bef49645bdd4f61ec73cc77a9f028b95d9856db9446d2e7fc9a48867a6f0e94c2c9f150cb771a30fe852db0efb0a1bd15d38b00d712651793ccb59ff6157a7b4
…n.cpp f685a13 doc: GetTransaction()/getrawtransaction follow-ups to bitcoin#22383 (John Newbery) abc57e1 refactor: move `GetTransaction(...)` to node/transaction.cpp (Sebastian Falbesoner) Pull request description: ~This PR is based on bitcoin#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 f685a13 rajarshimaitra: tACK bitcoin@f685a13 mjdietzx: crACK f685a13 LarryRuane: Code review, test ACK f685a13 Tree-SHA512: 0e844a6ecb1be04c638b55bc4478c2949549a4fcae01c984eee078de74d176fb19d508fc09360a62ad130677bfa7daf703b67870800e55942838d7313246248c
198ceb8 script, doc: guix touchups (jonatack) d7b7f61 Updated Readme, Corrected the codesign typo (h) Pull request description: ACKs for top commit: jamesob: ACK bitcoin@198ceb8 jonatack: ACK 198ceb8 Tree-SHA512: 408360cebb51cff330fdd5d5d8ae91a168cdc99fb1377913fd9119e6eba536e58f87ff5c5b479e21a21fa3403323b137c338005bbd67e6fd24314929cdff9325
fbeb8c4 test: add type annotations to util.get_rpc_proxy (fanquake) Pull request description: Split out from bitcoin#22092 while we address the functional test failure. ACKs for top commit: instagibbs: ACK bitcoin@fbeb8c4 Tree-SHA512: 031ef8703202ae5271787719fc3fea8693574b2eb937ccf852875de95798d7fa3c39a8db7c91993d0c946b45d9b4d6de570bd1102e0344348784723bd84803a8
PastaPastaPasta
force-pushed
the
bp23_2
branch
from
ce07481 to
0845e19
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Issue being fixed or feature implemented
bitcoin backports
What was done?
Backported bitcoin changes
How Has This Been Tested?
CI Run