Skip to content

backport: bitcoin#13868, #16400 #5254

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

knst
Copy link
Collaborator

@knst knst commented Mar 15, 2023

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

These backports are prior work for PR #5235 "prune g_chainman usage"

What was done?

Were backported changes from bitcoin:

How Has This Been Tested?

Run unit/functional tests

Breaking Changes

No breaking changes

Checklist:

  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have assigned this pull request to a milestone

fanquake and others added 2 commits March 15, 2023 17:06
…Inputs

9b92538 Remove unused fScriptChecks parameter from CheckInputs (Matt Corallo)

Pull request description:

  fScriptChecks = false just short-circuits the entire function, so
  passing it in is entirely useless.

  This is extracted from bitcoin#13233 /cc TheBlueMatt.

  Recommend reviewing with `git show --ignore-all-space`, i.e.:
  https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13868/files?w=1

ACKs for top commit:
  TheBlueMatt:
    utACK 9b92538. Checked diff had no functional change and new comment copy looks correct.
  kallewoof:
    ACK 9b92538
  ajtowns:
    ACK 9b92538 ; code review, checked tests work. Looks right to me, and fanquake's notes make sense. Could change the coinbase early exit to `assert(!tx.IsCoinBase());`.
  fanquake:
    ACK 9b92538 - Notes / testing below.

Tree-SHA512: add253a3e8cf4b33eddbc49efcec333c14b5ea61c7d34e43230351d40cff6adc919a75b91c72c4de8647a395284db74a61639f4c67848d4b2fec3a705b557790
…ng smaller parts

4a87c5c [refactor] Rewrite AcceptToMemoryPoolWorker() using smaller parts (Suhas Daftuar)

Pull request description:

  This is in preparation for re-using these validation components for a new version of AcceptToMemoryPool() that can operate on multiple transactions ("package relay").

ACKs for top commit:
  MarcoFalke:
    re-ACK 4a87c5c (did the rebase myself and arrived at the same result, mod whitespace)
  laanwj:
    ACK 4a87c5c

Tree-SHA512: b0495c026ffe06146258bace3d5e0c9aaf23fa65f89f258abc4af5980812e68e63a799f1d923e78ac1ee6bcafaf1222b2c2690a527df9b65dff7b48a013f154e
@knst knst requested a review from kwvg March 15, 2023 10:14
@knst knst added this to the 20 milestone Mar 15, 2023
Copy link
Collaborator

@kwvg kwvg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

utACK, changes integrated into #5235

@knst
Copy link
Collaborator Author

knst commented Mar 23, 2023

So far as changes integrated into #5235 there's nothing to merge anymore.

@knst knst closed this Mar 23, 2023
@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 removed this from the 20 milestone Apr 15, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants