2342b46c45 test: Add coverage for getchaintxstats in assumeutxo context (Fabian Jahr)
faf2a6750b rpc: Reorder getchaintxstats output (MarcoFalke)
fa2dada0c9 rpc: Avoid getchaintxstats invalid results (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
The `getchaintxstats` RPC reply during AU background download may return non-zero, but invalid, values for `window_tx_count` and `txrate`.
For example, `txcount` may be zero for a to-be-downloaded block, but may be non-zero for an ancestor block which is already downloaded. Thus, the values returned may be negative (and cause intermediate integer sanitizer violations).
Also, `txcount` may be accurate for the snapshot base block, or a descendant of it. However it may be zero for an ancestor block that still needs to be downloaded. Thus, the values returned may be positive, but wrong.
Fix all issues by skipping the returned value if either `txcount` is unset (equal to zero).
Also, skip `txcount` in the returned value, if it is unset (equal to zero).
Fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29328
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
re-ACK 2342b46c45
achow101:
ACK 2342b46c45
mzumsande:
ACK 2342b46c45
Tree-SHA512: 931cecc40ee5dc0f96be728db7eb297155f8343076cd29c8b8c050c99fd1d568b80f54c9459a34ca7a9489c2474c729796d00eeb1934d6a9f7b4d6a53e3ec430
926b8e39dc [doc] add release note for TRUC (glozow)
19a9b90617 use version=3 instead of v3 in debug strings (glozow)
881fac8e60 scripted-diff: change names from V3 to TRUC (glozow)
a573dd2617 [doc] replace mentions of v3 with TRUC (glozow)
089b5757df rename mempool_accept_v3.py to mempool_truc.py (glozow)
f543852a89 rename policy/v3_policy.* to policy/truc_policy.* (glozow)
Pull request description:
Adds a release note for TRUC policy which will be live in v28.0.
For clarity, replaces mentions of "v3" with "TRUC" in most places. Suggested in
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29496#discussion_r1629749583
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29496#discussion_r1624500904
I changed error strings from "v3-violation" to "TRUC-violation" but left v3 in the debug strings because I think it might be clearer for somebody who is debugging. Similarly, I left some variables unchanged because I think they're more descriptive this way, e.g. `tx_v3_from_v2_and_v3`. I'm happy to debate places that should or shouldn't be documented differently in this PR, whatever is clearest to everyone.
ACKs for top commit:
instagibbs:
reACK 926b8e39dc
achow101:
ACK 926b8e39dc
ismaelsadeeq:
Code review ACK 926b8e39dc
Tree-SHA512: 16c88add0a29dc6d1236c4d45f34a17b850f6727b231953cbd52eb9f7268d1d802563eadfc8b7928c94ed3d7a615275dd103e57e81439ebf3ba2b12efa1e42af
2f9bde69f4 test: Remove unnecessary restart in assumeutxo test (Fabian Jahr)
19ce3d407e assumeutxo: Check snapshot base block is not marked invalid (Fabian Jahr)
80315c0118 refactor: Move early loadtxoutset checks into ActiveSnapshot (Fabian Jahr)
Pull request description:
This was discovered in a discussion in #29996
If the base block of the snapshot is marked invalid or part of an invalid chain, we currently still load the snapshot and get stuck in a weird state where we have the snapshot chainstate but it will never connect to our valid chain.
While this scenario is highly unlikely to occur on mainnet, it still seems good to prevent this inconsistent state.
The behavior change described above is in the second commit.
The first commit refactors the early checks in the `loadtxoutset` RPC by moving them into `ActivateSnapshot()` in order to have the chance to cover them by unit tests in the future and have a more consistent interface. Previously checks were spread out between `rpc/blockchain.cpp` and `validation.cpp`. In order to be able to return the error message to users of the RPC, the return type of `ActivateSnapshot()` is changed from `bool` to `util::Result`.
The third commit removes an unnecessary restart introduced in #29428.
ACKs for top commit:
mzumsande:
re-ACK 2f9bde6
alfonsoromanz:
Re-ACK 2f9bde69f4. The RPC code looks much cleaner after the refactor. Also, it seems very useful to get the error message in the RPC response rather than having to rely on the logs in some scenarios if you are an RPC user.
achow101:
ACK 2f9bde69f4
Tree-SHA512: 5328dd88c3c7be3f1be97c9eef52ac3666c27188c30a798b3e949f3ffcb83be075127c107e4046f7f39f961a79911ea3d61b61f3c11e451b3e4c541c264eeed4
8ec24bdad8 test: Added coverage to Block not found error using gettxoutsetinfo (kevkevinpal)
Pull request description:
#### Description
There were no tests that checked for the `Block not found` error called in `ParseHashOrHeight` when using `gettxoutsetinfo`, this change adds coverage to it.
You can see there are no tests that do the following by doing the below
`grep -nri "Block not found.*gettxoutsetinfo" ./test/functional/`
which leads to no results
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 8ec24bdad8
tdb3:
ACK 8ec24bdad8
kristapsk:
ACK 8ec24bdad8
brunoerg:
crACK 8ec24bdad8
alfonsoromanz:
Re ACK 8ec24bdad8
Tree-SHA512: 2c61c681e7304c679cc3d7dd13af1b795780e85716c25c7423d68104e253d01271e048e21bc21be35dbc7ec1a4fde94e439542f3cfd669fe5a16478c5fa982ab
e38eadb2c2 test: change comments to `self.log.info` for `test_addnode_getaddednodeinfo` (brunoerg)
c838e3b610 test: add coverage for `node` field of `getaddednodeinfo` RPC (brunoerg)
Pull request description:
We currently do not test a successful call to `getaddednodeinfo` filtering by `node`, we only test it with an unknown address and checks whether it fails. This PR adds coverage to it.
ACKs for top commit:
kevkevinpal:
ACK [e38eadb](e38eadb2c2)
achow101:
ACK e38eadb2c2
tdb3:
re ACK e38eadb2c2
BrandonOdiwuor:
Code Review ACK e38eadb2c2
rkrux:
tACK [e38eadb](e38eadb2c2)
Tree-SHA512: e9f768b7aa86e58b0b0ced089ead57040ff9a5204493da1ab99c8bc897b6dcdce7c856855f74c52010fceef19af1e12a39eee9f8f2e7294b42476b6f980fe754
Keep mentions of v3 in debug strings to help people who might not know
that TRUC is applied when version=3.
Also keep variable names in tests, as it is less verbose to keep v3 and v2.
The "connect to ourself" detection logic has been first introduced
by Satoshi in October 2009, together with a couple of other changes
and a version bump to "v0.1.6 BETA" (see commit
cc0b4c3b62).
73f0a6cbd0 doc: detail -rpccookieperms option (willcl-ark)
d2afa2690c test: add rpccookieperms test (willcl-ark)
f467aede78 init: add option for rpccookie permissions (willcl-ark)
7df03f1a92 util: add perm string helper functions (willcl-ark)
Pull request description:
This PR picks up #26088 by aureleoules which adds a bitcoind launch option `-rpccookieperms` to set the file permissions of the cookie generated by bitcoin core.
Example usage to make the generated cookie group-readable: `./src/bitcoind -rpccookieperms=group`.
Accepted values for `-rpccookieperms` are `[owner|group|all]`. We let `fs::perms` handle platform-specific permissions changes.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 73f0a6cbd0
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 73f0a6cbd0. Main change since last review is no longer throwing a skip exception in the rpc test on windows, so other checks can run after it, and overall test result is passing, not skipped. Also were clarifying renames and documentation improvements.
tdb3:
cr ACK 73f0a6cbd0
Tree-SHA512: e800d59a44aca10e1c58ca69bf3fdde9f6ccf5eab4b7b962645af6d6bc0cfa3a357701e409c8c60d8d7744fcd33a91e77ada11790aa88cd7811ef60fab86ab11
72b226882f wallet: notify when preset + automatic inputs exceed max weight (furszy)
Pull request description:
Small change. Found it while finishing my review on #29523. This does not interfere with it.
Basically, we are erroring out early when the automatic coin selection process exceeds the maximum weight, but we are not doing so when the user-preselected inputs combined with the wallet-selected inputs exceed the maximum weight.
This change avoids signing all inputs before erroring out and introduces test coverage for `fundrawtransaction`.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 72b226882f
tdb3:
re ACK for 72b226882f
rkrux:
tACK [72b2268](72b226882f)
ismaelsadeeq:
utACK 72b226882f
Tree-SHA512: d77be19231023383a9c79a5d66b642dcbc6ebfc31a363e0b9f063c44898720a7859ec211cdbc0914ac7a3bfdf15e52fb8fc20d97f171431f70492c0f159dbc36
a9716c53f0 rpc: call IsInitialBlockDownload via miner interface (Sjors Provoost)
dda0b0834f rpc: minize getTipHash() calls in gbt (Sjors Provoost)
7b4d3249ce rpc: call processNewBlock via miner interface (Sjors Provoost)
9e228351e7 rpc: getTransactionsUpdated via miner interface (Sjors Provoost)
64ebb0f971 Always pass options to BlockAssembler constructor (Sjors Provoost)
4bf2e361da rpc: call CreateNewBlock via miner interface (Sjors Provoost)
404b01c436 rpc: getblocktemplate getTipHash() via Miner interface (Sjors Provoost)
d8a3496b5a rpc: call TestBlockValidity via miner interface (Sjors Provoost)
8ecb681678 Introduce Mining interface (Sjors Provoost)
Pull request description:
Introduce a `Mining` interface for the `getblocktemplate`, `generateblock` and other mining RPCs to use now, and for Stratum v2 to use later.
Suggested here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#issuecomment-2108528652
The selection of methods added to the interface is mostly based on what the Template Provider in #29432 uses. It could be expanded further so that `rpc/mining.cpp` no longer needs `EnsureMemPool` and `EnsureChainman`.
This PR should be a pure refactor.
ACKs for top commit:
tdb3:
re ACK a9716c53f0
itornaza:
Code review and std-tests ACK a9716c53f0
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK a9716c53f0 with one minor suggestion in case you update. Only changes since last review were other small changes to the interface.
Tree-SHA512: cf97f87d6e9ed89da3835a0730da3b24a7b14c8605ea221149103a5915e79598cf082a95f2bc88e33f1c450e3d4aad88aed1163a29195acca88bcace055af724
6eecba475e net_processing: make MaybePunishNodeFor{Block,Tx} return void (Pieter Wuille)
ae60d485da net_processing: remove Misbehavior score and increments (Pieter Wuille)
6457c31197 net_processing: make all Misbehaving increments = 100 (Pieter Wuille)
5120ab1478 net_processing: drop 8 headers threshold for incoming BIP130 (Pieter Wuille)
944c54290d net_processing: drop Misbehavior for unconnecting headers (Pieter Wuille)
9f66ac7cf1 net_processing: do not treat non-connecting headers as response (Pieter Wuille)
Pull request description:
So far, discouragement of peers triggers when their misbehavior score exceeds 100 points. Most types of misbehavior increment the score by 100, triggering immediate discouragement, but some types do not. This PR makes all increments equal to either 100 (meaning any misbehavior will immediately cause disconnection and discouragement) or 0 (making the behavior effectively unconditionally allowed), and then removes the logic for score accumulation.
This simplifies the code a bit, but also makes protocol expectations clearer: if a peer misbehaves, they get disconnected. There is no good reason why certain types of protocol violations should be permitted 4 times (howmuch=20) or 9 times (howmuch=10), while many others are never allowed. Furthermore, the distinction between these looks arbitrary.
The specific types of misbehavior that are changed to 100 are:
* Sending us a `block` which does not connect to our header tree (which necessarily must have been unsollicited). [used to be score 10]
* Sending us a `headers` with a non-continuous headers sequence. [used to be score 20]
* Sending us more than 1000 addresses in a single `addr` or `addrv2` message [used to be score 20]
* Sending us more than 50000 invs in a single `inv` message [used to be score 20]
* Sending us more than 2000 headers in a single `headers` message [used to be score 20]
The specific types of misbehavior that are changed to 0 are:
* Sending us 10 (*) separate BIP130 headers announcements that do not connect to our block tree [used to be score 20]
* Sending us more than 8 headers in a single `headers` message (which thus does not get treated as a BIP130 announcement) that does not connect to our block tree. [used to be score 10]
I believe that none of these behaviors are unavoidable, except for the one marked (*) which can in theory happen still due to interaction between BIP130 and variations in system clocks (the max 2 hour in the future rule). This one has been removed entirely. In order to remove the impact of the bug it was designed to deal with, without relying on misbehavior, a separate improvement is included that makes `getheaders`-tracking more accurate.
In another unrelated improvement, this also gets rid of the 8 header limit heuristic to determine whether an incoming non-connecting `headers` is a potential BIP130 announcement, as this rule is no longer needed to prevent spurious Misbehavior. Instead, any non-connecting `headers` is now treated as a potential announcement.
ACKs for top commit:
sr-gi:
ACK [6eecba4](6eecba475e)
achow101:
ACK 6eecba475e
mzumsande:
Code Review ACK 6eecba475e
glozow:
light code review / concept ACK 6eecba475e
Tree-SHA512: e11e8a652c4ec048d8961086110a3594feefbb821e13f45c14ef81016377be0db44b5311751ef635d6e026def1960aff33f644e78ece11cfb54f2b7daa96f946
94ed4fbf8e Add release note for size 2 package rbf (Greg Sanders)
afd52d8e63 doc: update package RBF comment (Greg Sanders)
6e3c4394cf mempool: Improve logging of replaced transactions (Greg Sanders)
d3466e4cc5 CheckPackageMempoolAcceptResult: Check package rbf invariants (Greg Sanders)
316d7b63c9 Fuzz: pass mempool to CheckPackageMempoolAcceptResult (Greg Sanders)
4d15bcf448 [test] package rbf (glozow)
dc21f61c72 [policy] package rbf (Suhas Daftuar)
5da3967815 PackageV3Checks: Relax assumptions (Greg Sanders)
Pull request description:
Allows any 2 transaction package with no in-mempool ancestors to do package RBF when directly conflicting with other mempool clusters of size two or less.
Proposed validation steps:
1) If the transaction package is of size 1, legacy rbf rules apply.
2) Otherwise the transaction package consists of a (parent, child) pair with no other in-mempool ancestors (or descendants, obviously), so it is also going to create a cluster of size 2. If larger, fail.
3) The package rbf may not evict more than 100 transactions from the mempool(bip125 rule 5)
4) The package is a single chunk
5) Every directly conflicted mempool transaction is connected to at most 1 other in-mempool transaction (ie the cluster size of the conflict is at most 2).
6) Diagram check: We ensure that the replacement is strictly superior, improving the mempool
7) The total fee of the package, minus the total fee of what is being evicted, is at least the minrelayfee * size of the package (equivalent to bip125 rule 3 and 4)
Post-cluster mempool this will likely be expanded to general package rbf, but this is what we can safely support today.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 94ed4fbf8e
glozow:
reACK 94ed4fbf8e via range-diff
ismaelsadeeq:
re-ACK 94ed4fbf8e
theStack:
Code-review ACK 94ed4fbf8e
murchandamus:
utACK 94ed4fbf8e
Tree-SHA512: 9bd383e695964f362f147482bbf73b1e77c4d792bda2e91d7f30d74b3540a09146a5528baf86854a113005581e8c75f04737302517b7d5124296bd7a151e3992
881724d443 test: Added test coverage to listsinceblock rpc (kevkevinpal)
Pull request description:
This change is meant to add test coverage to this rpc error https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/wallet/rpc/transactions.cpp#L666C53-L666C79
This is done by renaming the first block in the blocks folder
---
Doing a quick grep for the error code in our functional tests leads to zero results
`grep -nri "Can't read block from disk" ./test/functional/`
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 881724d443
tdb3:
re ACK for 881724d443
rkrux:
tACK [881724](881724d443)
Tree-SHA512: c5dff20cf014d0181f49d6b161f1364e1c6b79e8661047f77f07e21e59f4d1f2fd6f745538c8fc5bd6d4244650a840dd64d184634366f7c21fa67141a60af44a
5cf0a1f230 test: add `createmultisig` P2MS encoding test for all n (1..20) (Sebastian Falbesoner)
0570d2c204 test: add unit test for `keys_to_multisig_script` (Sebastian Falbesoner)
0c41fc3fa5 test: fix `keys_to_multisig_script` (P2MS) helper for n/k > 16 (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
While reviewing #28307, I noticed that the test framework's `key_to_multisig_script` helper (introduced in #23305) is broken for pubkey count (n) and threshold (k) values larger than 16. This is due to the implementation currently enforcing a direct single-byte data push (using `CScriptOp.encode_op_n`), which obviously fails for values 17+. Fix that by passing the numbers directly to the CScript list, where it's automatically converted to minimally-encoded pushes (see class method `CScript.__coerce_instance`, branch `isinstance(other, int)`).
The second commit adds a unit test to ensure that the encoding is correct.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 5cf0a1f230
tdb3:
ACK 5cf0a1f230
rkrux:
reACK [5cf0a1f](5cf0a1f230)
Tree-SHA512: 4168a165c3f483ec8e37a27dba1628a7ea0063545a2b7e74d9e20d753fddd7e33d37e1a190434fa6dca39adf9eef5d0211f7a0c1c7b44979f0a3bb350e267562
Adds argument --resultsfile to test_runner.py.
Writes comma-separated functional test name, status,
and duration to the file provided with the argument.
Also fixes minor typo in test_runner.py
f58beabe75 test: bumpfee with user specified fee_rate ignores walletIncrementalRelayFee (ismaelsadeeq)
436e88f433 bumpfee: ignore WALLET_INCREMENTAL_RELAY_FEE when user specifies fee rate (ismaelsadeeq)
Pull request description:
Fixes#26973
When using the `bumpfee` RPC and manually specifying `fee_rate`, there should be no requirement that the new fee must be at least the sum of the original fee and `incrementalFee` (maximum of `relayIncrementalFee` and `WALLET_INCREMENTAL_RELAY_FEE`).
This restriction should only apply when user did not specify `fee_rate`.
> because the GUI doesn't let the user specify the new fee rate yet (https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/647), it would be very annoying to have to bump 20 times to increment by 20 sat/vbyte.
The restriction should instead be the new fee must be at least the sum of the original fee and `incrementalFee` (`relayIncrementalFee`)
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK f58beabe75
murchandamus:
ACK f58beabe75
Tree-SHA512: 193259f87173b7d5a8e68e0e29f2ca7e75c550e3cf0dee3d6d822b5b1e07c2e6dec0bfc8fb435855736ebced97a10dbdbfef72e8c5abde06fdefcba122f2e7f1
429ec1aaaa refactor: Rename CTransaction::nVersion to version (Ava Chow)
27e70f1f5b consensus: Store transaction nVersion as uint32_t (Ava Chow)
Pull request description:
Given that the use of a transaction's nVersion is always as an unsigned int, it doesn't make sense to store it as signed and then cast it to unsigned everywhere it is used and displayed.
Since a few alternative implementations have recently been revealed to have made an error with this signedness that would have resulted in consensus failure, I think it makes sense for us to just make this always unsigned to make it clear that the version is treated as unsigned. This would also help us avoid future potential issues with signedness of this value.
I believe that this is safe and does not actually change what transactions would or would not be considered both standard and consensus valid. Within consensus, the only use of the version in consensus is in BIP68 validation which was already casting it to uint32_t. Within policy, although it is used as a signed int for the transaction version number check, I do not think that this change would change standardness. Standard transactions are limited to the range [1, 2]. Negative numbers would have fallen under the < 1 condition, but by making it unsigned, they are still non-standard under the > 2 condition.
Unsigned and signed ints are serialized and unserialized the same way so there is no change in serialization.
ACKs for top commit:
maflcko:
ACK 429ec1aaaa 🐿
glozow:
ACK 429ec1aaaa
shaavan:
ACK 429ec1aaaa💯
Tree-SHA512: 0bcd92a245d7d16c3665d2d4e815a4ef28207ad4a1fb46c6f0203cdafeab1b82c4e95e4bdce7805d80a4f4a46074f6542abad708e970550d38a00d759e3dcef1
24bc46c83b cli: Add warning for duplicate port definition (tdb3)
e208fb5d3b cli: Sanitize ports in rpcconnect and rpcport (tdb3)
Pull request description:
Adds invalid port detection to bitcoin-cli for -rpcconnect and -rpcport.
In addition to detecting malformed/invalid ports (e.g. those outside of the 16-bit port range, not numbers, etc.), bitcoin-cli also now considers usage of port 0 to be invalid. bitcoin-cli previously considered port 0 to be valid and attempted to use it to reach bitcoind.
Functional tests were added for invalid port detection as well as port prioritization.
Additionally, a warning is provided when a port is specified in both -rpcconnect and -rpcport.
This PR is an alternate approach to PR #27820 (e.g. SplitHostPort is unmodified).
Considered an alternative to 127.0.0.1 being specified in functional tests, but at first glance, this might need an update to test_framework/util.py (e.g. rpc_url), which might be left to a future PR.
ACKs for top commit:
S3RK:
light code review ACK 24bc46c83b
achow101:
ACK 24bc46c83b
cbergqvist:
re ACK 24bc46c83b
Tree-SHA512: c83ab6a30a08dd1ac8b368a7dcc2b4f23170f0b61dd67ffcad7bcda05096d333bcb9821fba11018151f55b2929c0a333bfec15b8bb863d83f41fc1974c6efca5
ab98e6fd03 test: add coverage for errors for `combinerawtransaction` RPC (brunoerg)
Pull request description:
This PR adds test coverage for the following errors for the `combinerawtransaction` RPC:
* Tx decode failed
* Missing transactions
* Input not found or already spent
For reference: https://maflcko.github.io/b-c-cov/total.coverage/src/rpc/rawtransaction.cpp.gcov.html
ACKs for top commit:
maflcko:
lgtm ACK ab98e6fd03
tdb3:
ACK ab98e6fd03
Tree-SHA512: 8a133c25dad2e1b236e0278a88796f60f763e3fd6fbbc080f926bb23f9dcc55599aa242d6e0c4ec15a179d9ded10a1f17ee5b6063719107ea84e6099f10416b2
0000276b31 test: Remove redundant verack check (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Currently the sync in `connect_nodes` mentions the `version` and `verack` message types, but only checks the `verack`. Neither check is required, as the `pong` check implies both. In case of failure, the debug log will have to be consulted anyway, so the redundant check doesn't add value.
Also clarify in the comments that the goal is to check the flag `fSuccessfullyConnected` indirectly.
ACKs for top commit:
furszy:
utACK 0000276b31
brunoerg:
ACK 0000276b31
tdb3:
ACK 0000276b31
Tree-SHA512: f9ddcb1436d2f70da462a8dd470ecfc90a534dd6507c23877ef7626e7c02326c077001a42ad0171a87fba5c5275d1970d8c5e5d82c56c8412de944856fdfd6db
39d135e79f test: MiniWallet: respect fee_rate for target_weight, use in mempool_limit.py (Sebastian Falbesoner)
b2f0a9f8b0 test: add framework functional test for MiniWallet's tx padding (Sebastian Falbesoner)
c17550bc3a test: MiniWallet: fix tx padding (`target_weight`) for large sizes, improve accuracy (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
MiniWallet allows to create padded transactions that are equal or slightly above a certain `target_weight` (first introduced in PR #25379, commit 1d6b438ef0), which can be useful especially for mempool-related tests, e.g. for policy limit checks or scenarios to trigger mempool eviction. Currently the `target_weight` parameter doesn't play together with `fee_rate` though, as the fee calculation is incorrectly based on the tx vsize before the padding output is added, so the fee-rate is consequently far off. This means users are forced to pass an absolute fee, which can be quite inconvenient and leads to lots of duplicated "calculate absolute fee from fee-rate and vsize" code with the pattern `fee = (feerate / 1000) * (weight // 4)` on the call-sites.
This PR first improves the tx padding itself to be more accurate, adds a functional test for it, and fixes the `fee_rate` treatment for the `{create,send}_self_transfer` methods. (Next step would be to enable this also for the `_self_transfer_multi` methods, but those currently don't even offer a `fee_rate` parameter). Finally, the ability to pass both `target_weight` and `fee_rate` is used in the `mempool_limit.py` functional test. There might be more use-cases in other tests, that could be done in a follow-up.
ACKs for top commit:
rkrux:
tACK [39d135e](39d135e79f)
ismaelsadeeq:
Code Review ACK 39d135e79f🚀
glozow:
light review ACK 39d135e79f
Tree-SHA512: 6bf8e853a921576d463291d619cdfd6a7e74cf92f61933a563800ac0b3c023a06569b581243166906f56b3c5e8858fec2d8a6910d55899e904221f847eb0953d
f68cba29b3 blockman: Replace m_reindexing with m_blockfiles_indexed (Ryan Ofsky)
1b1c6dcca0 test: Add functional test for continuing a reindex (TheCharlatan)
201c1a9282 indexes: Don't wipe indexes again when already reindexing (TheCharlatan)
804f09dfa1 kernel: Add less confusing reindex options (Ryan Ofsky)
e172553223 validation: Remove needs_init from LoadBlockIndex (TheCharlatan)
533eab7d67 bugfix: Streamline setting reindex option (TheCharlatan)
Pull request description:
When restarting `bitcoind` during an ongoing reindex without setting the `-reindex` flag again, the block and coins db is left intact, but any data from the optional indexes is discarded. While not a bug per se, wiping the data again is
wasteful, both in terms of having to write it again, as well as potentially leading to longer startup times. So keep the index data instead when continuing a prior reindex.
Also includes a bugfix and smaller code cleanups around the reindexing code. The bug was introduced in b47bd95920: "kernel: De-globalize fReindex".
ACKs for top commit:
stickies-v:
ACK f68cba29b3
fjahr:
Code review ACK f68cba29b3
furszy:
Code review ACK f68cba29b3
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK f68cba29b3. Only changes since last review were cherry-picking suggested commits that rename variables, improving comments, and making some tweaks to test code.
Tree-SHA512: b252228cc76e9f1eaac56d5bd9e4eac23408e0fc04aeffd97a85417f046229364673ee1ca7410b9b6e7b692b03f13ece17c42a10176da0d7e975a8915deb98ca
1f6ab1215b minor: remove unnecessary semicolons from RPC content type examples (Matthew Zipkin)
b225295298 test: use json-rpc 2.0 in all functional tests by default (Matthew Zipkin)
391843b029 bitcoin-cli: use json-rpc 2.0 (Matthew Zipkin)
d39bdf3397 test: remove unused variable in interface_rpc.py (Matthew Zipkin)
0ead71df8c doc: update and link for JSON-RPC 2.0 (Matthew Zipkin)
Pull request description:
This is a follow-up to #27101.
- Addresses [post-merge comments ](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27101#discussion_r1606723428)
- bitcoin-cli uses JSON-RPC 2.0
- functional tests use JSON-RPC 2.0 by default (exceptions are in the regression tests added by #27101)
ACKs for top commit:
tdb3:
ACK 1f6ab1215b
cbergqvist:
ACK 1f6ab1215b
Tree-SHA512: 49bf14c70464081280216ece538a2f5ec810bac80a86a83ad3284f0f1b017edf755a1a74a45be279effe00218170cafde7c2de58aed07097a95c2c6b837a6b6c
In order to ensure that the change of nVersion to a uint32_t in the
previous commit has no effect, rename nVersion to version in this commit
so that reviewers can easily spot if a spot was missed or if there is a
check somewhere whose semantics have changed.
