backport: V19.2 rc.1 backports #5427
Merged
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
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented we missed it in dashpay#5385 ## What was done? ## 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)_
…pay#5394) ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented gmp can't be detected on macos when installed via `brew` atm ## What was done? detect package prefix and adjust CPPFLAGS and LDFLAGS accordingly ## How Has This Been Tested? `./configure` before: `configure: error: libgmp headers missing` after: passes ## 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 LLMQ_400_85 requires four days worth of LLMQs https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/llmq/params.h#L416 ## What was done? ## How Has This Been Tested? n/a ## 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 - [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_
…ment (dashpay#5398) ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented Currently, Chainlocks are either enabled or disabled. This PR adds a third state: enabled but we will not sign new ones. Should probably backport this to v19.x ## What was done? Spork state != 0 but active will now result in chain locks being enforced but not created. ## How Has This Been Tested? ## Breaking Changes None ## Checklist: _Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that apply._ - [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_ --------- Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
…9.py (dashpay#5402) ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented fix a couple of issues in helpers, extend feature_dip3_v19.py to check more after v19 fork ## What was done? pls see individual PRs ## 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)_
…nd dstx after v19 activation (dashpay#5404) ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented Should fix dashpay#5401 with minimal potential coinjoin service interruption (~1 minute around v19 fork point) for up to date clients. Fully backwards compatible prior to v19 activation. Old clients won't be able to mix after v19 activation though until they implement similar changes. _EDIT: Actually, this is already the case cause bls sigs are going to change too._ And I think we should also be able to finally drop `masternodeOutpoint` from `CCoinJoinQueue` and `CCoinJoinBroadcastTx` once v19 is active because of that which would be a nice bonus. cc @HashEngineering ## What was done? re-use v19 activation to switch `GetSignatureHash` logic ## How Has This Been Tested? mixing on mainnet ## Breaking Changes mixing won't work on current testnet until MNs are updated ## 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)_
Removes extra 's' after import
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented Dash does not have `sethdseed`, but the help mentioned it. ## What was done? Switched to `upgradetohd`. ## How Has This Been Tested? ## Breaking Changes N/A ## 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 - [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_
fix: resolve two DMNL cache issues
backport: bitcoin#26633 (update qt 5.12 url to archive location)
same as dashpay#5392, alternative solution ~based on dashpay#5402 atm, will rebase later~ pls see individual commits reorg mainnet around forkpoint with a patched client (to allow low difficulty), run tests Another evodb migration is required. Going back to an older version or migrating after the fork requires reindexing. - [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)_
…isticMNState (dashpay#5413) ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented Member obj.keyIDOwner is read & write twice ## What was done? Fixed: it is serialized once ## How Has This Been Tested? Unit/functional tests in CI ## Breaking Changes Data format in database changed in incompatible way ## 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
current develop fails to reindex whenever there is an issue at node
start (prints `should not be overwriting a chainstate` in `debug.log`)
reset chainman to allow it re-initialize chainstate
simulated an issue with
```
if (!fReset) {
strLoadError = _("DEBUG");
break;
}
```
should not be any but pls test
- [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)_
UdjinM6
requested changes
Jun 11, 2023
PastaPastaPasta
force-pushed
the
v19.2-rc.1-backports
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e2ae9ee
to
747a411
Compare
- CBLSLazyWrapper is doing to much and not enough at the same time - nVersion assignment in CDeterministicMNState(Diff) is incomplete - pubKeyOperator deserialization needs nVersion but nVersion is deser-ed much later - protx rpcs are implicitly converting pubKeyOperator (by forcing nVersion=2), they shouldn't do that pls see individual commits - [x] run tests locally - [x] reindex on testnet: - [x] with and without `--assumevalid=0` to the tip - [x] with 19.1 almost to the forkpoint, then with this version - [x] reindex on mainnet: - [x] with and without `--assumevalid=0` to the tip - [x] with 19.1 to height 1100000+, then with this version might need reindexing if you were running develop on testnet already - [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)_
…/deser pubKeyOperator (dashpay#5397) 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 ~dashpay#5392~ dashpay#5403 (changes that belong to this PR: 26f7e96 and 4b42dc8) and aims to solve both of these issues.~ cc @HashEngineering @QuantumExplorer 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. run tests NOTE: `testnet` is going to re-fork at v19 forkpoint because `merkleRootMNList` is not going to match - [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)_
…nd chainTxData for testnet (dashpay#5428) Having these above v19 forkpoint (850100) would result in v19.2 nodes forking at the wrong height (864000) when reindexing without `--assumevalid=<0 or some pre-v19 block height>` Go back to pre-v19 block (850000) in chainparams reindex n/a - [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)_
fix: Various small fixes
PastaPastaPasta
force-pushed
the
v19.2-rc.1-backports
branch
from
747a411
to
b0a1fa5
Compare
…nd chainTxData for testnet (again) (dashpay#5430) Same as dashpay#5428 but with a lower block number this time. This should let us simply reorg testnet with 18.2.2 at deeper blocks instead of bumping v19 testnet activation params for 19.2. n/a - [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)_
PastaPastaPasta
force-pushed
the
v19.2-rc.1-backports
branch
from
b0a1fa5
to
5de3fe8
Compare
Some conditions won't trigger when reorging exactly from the forkpoint pls see individual commits, tl;dr: you can't get correct results with `GetAncestor` cause the answer is in the future reorg to 850000 and back on testnet ``` invalidateblock 0000003eddb94218e7a3f41b2ac6e26143f8a748b50cd26e86bdbbab9ebe50aa reconsiderblock 0000003eddb94218e7a3f41b2ac6e26143f8a748b50cd26e86bdbbab9ebe50aa ``` this fails on develop and work with this patch n/a - [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)_
PastaPastaPasta
force-pushed
the
v19.2-rc.1-backports
branch
from
5de3fe8
to
75fe05e
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.
I was unable to backport 5397 due to conflicts @UdjinM6 please evaluate;also 5403 and later backports had conflicts so review them with more vigor.Issue being fixed or feature implemented
backports
What was done?
backports
How Has This Been Tested?
reindexed, and individual commits were tested
Breaking Changes
Checklist:
Go over all the following points, and put an
xin all the boxes that apply.