Skip to content

Conversation

@UdjinM6
Copy link

@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 commented Jan 24, 2024

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

develop can't sync from genesis on mainnet, b8a086d broke it.

#5790 follow-up

What was done?

Revive the old logic but using hardcoded block heights instead of scanning via quorum manager.

How Has This Been Tested?

Synced on mainnet/testnet, CI is happy https://gitlab.com/UdjinM6/dash/-/pipelines/1148980046.

Breaking Changes

n/a

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
  • I have assigned this pull request to a milestone (for repository code-owners and collaborators only)

@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 added this to the 20.1 milestone Jan 24, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@knst knst left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM (let's wait CI)

Copy link
Member

@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

utACK for squash merge

@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta merged commit 10312f7 into dashpay:develop Jan 28, 2024
if (Params().NetworkIDString() == CBaseChainParams::TESTNET) return true;
return !fDIP0024IsActive;

return !fDIP0024IsActive || !fHaveDIP0024Quorums ||
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this line should not be changed, should it?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yes, indeed, it has been changed in #5790 and reverted later in 5841 (this PR).
Both RRs are between v20.0.4 and v20.1, so, it should not affect then

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.

3 participants