72a1d5c6f3 validation: Remove review-only comments + assertions (Carl Dong)
3756853b15 docs: Move FindFilesToPrune{,Manual} doxygen comment (Carl Dong)
485899a93c style: Make FindFilesToPrune{,Manual} match style guide (Carl Dong)
3f5b5f3f6d validation: Move FindFilesToPrune{,Manual} to BlockManager (Carl Dong)
f8d4975ab3 validation: Move PruneOneBlockFile to BlockManager (Carl Dong)
74f73c783d validation: Pass in chainman to UnloadBlockIndex (Carl Dong)
4668ded6d6 validation: Move ~CMainCleanup logic to ~BlockManager (Carl Dong)
Pull request description:
This PR paves the way for de-globalizing `g_chainman` entirely by removing the usage of `g_chainman` in the following functions/methods:
- `~CMainCleanup`
- `CChainState::FlushStateToDisk`
- `UnloadBlockIndex`
The remaining direct uses of `g_chainman` are as follows:
1. In initialization codepaths:
- `AppTests`
- `AppInitMain`
- `TestingSetup::TestingSetup`
2. `::ChainstateActive`
3. `LookupBlockIndex`
- Note: `LookupBlockIndex` is used extensively throughout the codebase and require a much larger set of changes, therefore I've left it out of this initial PR
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
re-ACK 72a1d5c6f3👚
jnewbery:
utACK 72a1d5c6f3
Tree-SHA512: 944a4fa8405eecf39706ff944375d6824373aaeea849d11473f08181eff26b12f70043a8348a5b08e6e9021b243b481842fbdfbc7c3140ca795fce3688b7f5c3
7a89f2e6c5 build: Fix target name (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
It seems like a typo :)
This PR:
- fixes errors when building a package in depends for `HOST=x86_64-apple-darwin16` (fix#19799)
- is a correct alternative to d25e0e308f from #19764
ACKs for top commit:
icota:
tACK 7a89f2e6c5
dongcarl:
Code Review ACK 7a89f2e6c5
theuni:
ACK 7a89f2e6c5.
Tree-SHA512: a0bcbc6805d3450e201476ef1e22e0eb53903db1586c5515314c19afd337bded887e56de0fbe62feaf359b2de15dbccd49a44f1a8b566b4c64f5ae3d94a2ab6d
fa14f57fbc Assert that RPCArg names are equal to CRPCCommand ones (net, rpcwallet) (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
This is the last part split out from #18531 to just touch some RPC methods. Description from the main pr:
### Motivation
RPCArg names in the rpc help are currently only used for documentation. However, in the future they could be used to teach the server the named arguments. Named arguments are currently registered by the `CRPCCommand`s and duplicate the RPCArg names from the documentation. This redundancy is fragile, and has lead to errors in the past (despite having linters to catch those kind of errors). See section "bugs found" for a list of bugs that have been found as a result of the changes here.
### Changes
The changes here add an assert in the `CRPCCommand` constructor that the RPCArg names are identical to the ones in the `CRPCCommand`.
### Future work
> Here or follow up, makes sense to also assert type of returned UniValue?
Sure, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. I am going to submit any further works as follow-ups, including:
* Removing the CRPCCommand arguments, now that they are asserted to be equal and thus redundant
* Removing all python regex linters on the args, now that RPCMan can be used to generate any output, including the cli.cpp table
* Auto-formatting and sanity checking the RPCExamples with RPCMan
* Checking passed-in json in self-check. Removing redundant checks
* Checking returned json against documentation to avoid regressions or false documentation
* Compile the RPC documentation at compile-time to ensure it doesn't change at runtime and is completely static
### Bugs found
* The assert identified issue #18607
* The changes itself fixed bug #19250
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
tACK fa14f57fbc
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK fa14f57fbc. Just straightforward replacements except code moved in `addnode`, and displatching updated in `bumpfee_helper`
Tree-SHA512: e07af150f1d95a88e558256ce197a6b7dc6cd722a6d6c13c75d944c49c2e2441f8b8237e9f94b03db69fa18f9bda627b0781d5e1da70bf5415e09b38728a8cb1
0bd1184adf Remove unused LockAssertion struct (Hennadii Stepanov)
ab2a44297f Replace LockAssertion with a proper thread safety annotations (Hennadii Stepanov)
73f71e1996 refactor: Use explicit function type instead of template (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
This PR replaces `LockAssertion` with `AssertLockHeld`, and removes `LockAssertion`.
This PR is compared with alternatives in https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/AssertLockHeld-PRs
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK 0bd1184adf
ajtowns:
ACK 0bd1184adf
vasild:
ACK 0bd1184ad
Tree-SHA512: ef7780dd689faf0bb479fdb97c49bc652e2dd10c148234bb95502dfbb676442d8565ee37864d923ca21a25f9dc2a335bf46ee82c095e387b59a664ab05c0ae41
759d94e70f Update zmq notification documentation and sample consumer (Gregory Sanders)
68c3c7e1bd Add functional tests for zmq sequence topic and mempool sequence logic (Gregory Sanders)
e76fc2b84d Add 'sequence' zmq publisher to track all block (dis)connects, mempool deltas (Gregory Sanders)
1b615e61bf zmq test: Actually make reorg occur (Gregory Sanders)
Pull request description:
This PR creates a new ZMQ notifier that gives a "total hash history" of block (dis)connection, mempool addition/substraction, all in one pipeline. It also exposes a "mempool sequence number" to both this notifier and `getrawmempool` results, which allows the consumer to use the results together without confusion about ordering of results and without excessive `getrawmempool` polling.
See the functional test `interfaces_zmq.py::test_mempool_sync` which shows the proposed user flow for the client-side tracking of mempool contents and confirmations.
Inspired by https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19462#issuecomment-656140421
Alternative to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19462 due to noted deficiencies in current zmq notification streams.
Also fixes a legacy zmq test that didn't actually trigger a reorg because of identical blocks being generated on each side of the split(oops)
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK 759d94e70f
Tree-SHA512: 9daf0d7d996190f3a68ff40340a687519323d7a6c51dcb26be457fbc013217ea7b62fbd0700b74b654433d2e370704feb61e5584399290692464fcfcb72ce3b7
facaf9e61f doc: Document signet BIP (MarcoFalke)
faf0a26711 doc: Update comments for new chain settings (-signet and -chain=signet) (MarcoFalke)
fae0548686 fuzz: Remove needless guard (MarcoFalke)
77771a03df refactor: Remove SignetTxs::m_valid and use optional instead (MarcoFalke)
fa2ad5dae1 test: Run signet test even when wallet was not compiled (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Some doc and test fixups for #18267
ACKs for top commit:
ajtowns:
ACK facaf9e61f -- code review only
dr-orlovsky:
Reviewed & ACK facaf9e61f
kallewoof:
Code review ACK facaf9e61f
Tree-SHA512: 8085027c488d84bb4bddccba78bd2d4c5af0d8e2644ee72265f1f30fa8c83f61a961d9da2c796f2940e69682291cbee7b1028b6a6ce123ad9134c0ebbf4723b0
e15344889a Clarify blocksonly whitelistforcerelay test (t-bast)
Pull request description:
As discussed in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19943, this test may be a bit misleading to newcomers.
We underscore the fact that our peer needs to run a modified version of Bitcoin Core to actually relay transactions to a `blocksonly` node and benefit from the `whitelistforcerelay` parameter.
ACKs for top commit:
naumenkogs:
ACK e15344889a
Tree-SHA512: cc3526ac26c40a2d878b0ad863008663040683fd21092fcdc93866c2b0a79db8c2d29767d1f70bf56195092fca2aa2961cdbee52b5f0b1ae757cece9cd206301
m_valid implies the block solution has been checked, which is not the
case. It only means the txs could be parsed. C++17 comes with
std::optional, so just use that instead.
Using the zmq notifications to avoid excessive mempool polling can be difficult
given the current notifications available. It announces all transactions
being added to mempool or included in blocks, but announces no evictions
and gives no indication if the transaction is in the mempool or a block.
Block notifications for zmq are also substandard, in that it only announces
block tips, while all block transactions are still announced.
This commit adds a unified stream which can be used to closely track mempool:
1) getrawmempool to fill out mempool knowledge
2) if txhash is announced, add or remove from set
based on add/remove flag
3) if blockhash is announced, get block txn list,
remove from those transactions local view of mempool
4) if we drop a sequence number, go to (1)
The mempool sequence number starts at the value 1, and
increments each time a transaction enters the mempool,
or is evicted from the mempool for any reason, including
block inclusion. The mempool sequence number is published
via ZMQ for any transaction-related notification.
These features allow for ZMQ/RPC consumer to track mempool
state in a more exacting way, without unnecesarily polling
getrawmempool. See interface_zmq.py::test_mempool_sync for
example usage.
fa6bb0ce5d Assert that RPCArg names are equal to CRPCCommand ones (rawtransaction) (MarcoFalke)
fa80c81487 Assert that RPCArg names are equal to CRPCCommand ones (blockchain) (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
This is split out from #18531 to just touch some RPC methods. Description from the main pr:
### Motivation
RPCArg names in the rpc help are currently only used for documentation. However, in the future they could be used to teach the server the named arguments. Named arguments are currently registered by the `CRPCCommand`s and duplicate the RPCArg names from the documentation. This redundancy is fragile, and has lead to errors in the past (despite having linters to catch those kind of errors). See section "bugs found" for a list of bugs that have been found as a result of the changes here.
### Changes
The changes here add an assert in the `CRPCCommand` constructor that the RPCArg names are identical to the ones in the `CRPCCommand`.
### Future work
> Here or follow up, makes sense to also assert type of returned UniValue?
Sure, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. I am going to submit any further works as follow-ups, including:
* Removing the CRPCCommand arguments, now that they are asserted to be equal and thus redundant
* Removing all python regex linters on the args, now that RPCMan can be used to generate any output, including the cli.cpp table
* Auto-formatting and sanity checking the RPCExamples with RPCMan
* Checking passed-in json in self-check. Removing redundant checks
* Checking returned json against documentation to avoid regressions or false documentation
* Compile the RPC documentation at compile-time to ensure it doesn't change at runtime and is completely static
### Bugs found
* The assert identified issue #18607
* The changes itself fixed bug #19250
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
utACK fa6bb0ce5d
tryphe:
utACK fa6bb0ce5d. Reducing data duplication is nice. Code changes are minimal and concise.
Tree-SHA512: deb0edc3f999baf055526eaa199b98c500635e12502dece7aa3cad5319db330eb5ee7459a5c8f040a83671a7f20c560c19a2026fb76c8416f138aa332727cbce
ddefb5c0b7 p2p: Use the greatest common version in peer logic (Hennadii Stepanov)
e084d45562 p2p: Remove SetCommonVersion() from VERACK handler (Hennadii Stepanov)
8d2026796a refactor: Rename local variable nSendVersion (Hennadii Stepanov)
e9a6d8b13b p2p: Unify Send and Receive protocol versions (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
On master (6fef85bfa3) `CNode` has two members to keep protocol version:
- `nRecvVersion` for received messages
- `nSendVersion` for messages to send
After exchanging with `VERSION` and `VERACK` messages via protocol version `INIT_PROTO_VERSION`, both nodes set `nRecvVersion` _and_ `nSendVersion` to _the same_ value which is the greatest common protocol version.
This PR:
- replaces two `CNode` members, `nRecvVersion` `nSendVersion`, with `m_greatest_common_version`
- removes duplicated getter and setter
There is no change in behavior on the P2P network.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
ACK ddefb5c0b7
naumenkogs:
ACK ddefb5c0b7
fjahr:
Code review ACK ddefb5c0b7
amitiuttarwar:
code review but untested ACK ddefb5c0b7
benthecarman:
utACK `ddefb5c`
Tree-SHA512: 5305538dbaa5426b923b0afd20bdef4f248d310855d1d78427210c00716c67b7cb691515c421716b6157913e453076e293b10ff5fd2cd26a8e5375d42da7809d
0d04784af1 Refactor the functional test (Gleb Naumenko)
83ad65f31b Address nits in ADDR caching (Gleb Naumenko)
81b00f8780 Add indexing ADDR cache by local socket addr (Gleb Naumenko)
42ec558542 Justify the choice of ADDR cache lifetime (Gleb Naumenko)
Pull request description:
This is a follow-up on #18991 which does 3 things:
- improves privacy of a node listening to multiple addresses via adding cache index by local socket addr (suggested [here](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18991#issuecomment-668219345))
- documents on the choice of 24h cache lifetime
- addresses nits from #18991
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
utACK 0d04784af1
vasild:
ACK 0d04784
jonatack:
Code review ACK 0d04784
Tree-SHA512: bb65a34dd1ce2811186d3e4469bc33e8399cebaaa494ce13041c7cff23275870e4176a719f7a72f8d779c49f8b2344bf4fa1aeb3ea4e2626d5ae76514f00a750
[META] This is a followup to "validation: Move FindFilesToPrune{,Manual}
to BlockManager" removing comments and assertions meant only to
show that the change is correct.
[META] No behaviour change is intended in this commit.
[META] This commit should be followed up by removing the comments and
assertions meant only to show that the change is correct.
Also stop FindFilesToPrune{,Manual} from unnecessary reaching for
::ChainActive() by passing in the necessary information.
As discussed in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19943, this
test may be a bit misleading to newcomers.
We underscore the fact that our peer needs to run a modified version of
Bitcoin Core to actually relay transactions to a `blocksonly` node and
benefit from the `whitelistforcerelay` parameter.
638441928a test: add parameterized constructor for msg_sendcmpct() (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
While working on the test for #19776 I noticed that creating a `sendcmpct` message is quite cumbersome -- due to the lack of a parameterized constructor, one needs to create an empty (that is, initialized with default values) object and then set the two fields one by one. This PR replaces the default constructor with a parameterized constructor and uses it in the test `p2p_compactblocks.py`, reducing LOC. No need to pollute the namespace with temporary throw-away message objects anymore.
ACKs for top commit:
guggero:
Code review ACK 638441928a.
epson121:
Code review ACK 638441928a
Tree-SHA512: 3b58d276d714b73abc6cc98d1d52dec5f6026b33f03faaeb7dcbc5d83ac377555179f98b159b2b9ecc8957999c35a1dc082e3c69299c5fde4e35f1bd0587ce9d
a06eb03ded doc: Add comments and additional reviewers to CODEOWNERS file (Adam Jonas)
e02da22906 doc: Add CODEOWNERS file (Wladimir J. van der Laan)
Pull request description:
This PR brings back and builds on #17094. GitHub uses a CODEOWNERS magic file to automatically add tagged contributors to the "Reviewers" list for a PR.
The goal of this is to make use of GitHub's suggested reviewers feature and not to confer ownership or give veto power to specific people. It would be better if this file could be named CODEREVIEWERS, but alas, that wouldn't work. The idea of a NAGFILE was proposed in [Bitcoin Core Dev meeting in 2018](https://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/bitcoin-core-dev-tech/2018-03-07-priorities/#:~:text=NAGFILE). While this GitHub implementation has some complications, it's a step towards realizing the promise of automating "reviewing begging" and (hopefully) positively impacting the review process as a whole.
Of secondary value, this file can serve as documentation for who the maintainers are and who it might be smart to check with for certain areas of code/features (i.e., fuzzing, PSBT, and Bech32) -- this is helpful information for new contributors.
* The first commit is taken from #17094
* The second commit adds comments and expands the list of reviewers based on the suggestions and comments from that PR
* ~The third WIP commit~ This commit also uses the doc dir as an example of granular assignments based on lines of codes ~contributed~ written and/or general engagement with the project. (If interested, here is a report for [most lines of code per author for each file](https://gist.github.com/adamjonas/854a46a1918224927b186865baeac411)). The pro of this level of detail is that the best reviewer is more likely to be nominated. The con is that it will create churn as files are renamed, new files are added, or reviewers want to be added or removed.
Some open questions:
* How often should this file be changed?
* What level of history does one need have on the project before being added to this file? When does it make sense to remove a reviewer?
* These review notifications can [cause a lot of noise](https://github.community/t5/How-to-use-Git-and-GitHub/Team-based-notifications-or-rework-CODEOWNERS-notification/td-p/7811) and automatically subscribes the requested reviewer to the thread. A GitHub Team based approach would allow for adding or removing reviewers without modifying this file; however, this comes along with its [own set of problems](https://bionic.fullstory.com/taming-github-codeowners-with-bots/#problems-with-github-code-owners), including granting [write access](https://github.community/t5/How-to-use-Git-and-GitHub/CODEOWNERS-works-with-users-but-not-teams/td-p/4986#U4991). Other projects [have used bots](https://bionic.fullstory.com/taming-github-codeowners-with-bots/#using-a-github-bot) to sidestep this.
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: aa674ac62478b8801f48750df869c802070dc83d0fa9ff93596e9d63406129d7fd3c0daeb35d7a1a259554d045c24746a6808878a7b9867c7ed66d251f0c918f
6fe2ef2acb scripted-diff: Rename SendMessage to SendZmqMessage. (Daniel Kraft)
a3ffb6ebeb Replace zmqconfig.h by a simple zmqutil. (Daniel Kraft)
7f2ad1b9ac Use std::unique_ptr for CZMQNotifierFactory. (Daniel Kraft)
b93b9d5456 Simplify and fix notifier removal on error. (Daniel Kraft)
e15b1cfc31 Various cleanups in zmqnotificationinterface. (Daniel Kraft)
Pull request description:
This contains various small code cleanups that make the ZMQ code easier to read and maintain (at least in my opinion). The only functional change is that a potential memory leak is fixed that would have occured when a notifier is removed from the `notifiers` list after its callback function returned `false` (which is likely not relevant in practice but still a bug).
ACKs for top commit:
instagibbs:
utACK 6fe2ef2acb
hebasto:
re-ACK 6fe2ef2acb, only the latest commit got a scripted-diff since my [previous](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13686#pullrequestreview-487649808) review.
Tree-SHA512: 8206f8713bf3698d7cd4cb235f6657dc1c4dd920f50a8c5f371a559dd17ce5ab6d94d6281165eef860a22fc844a6bb25489ada12c83ebc780efd7ccdc0860f70
23c35bf005 [test] add get_vsize util for more programmatic testing (gzhao408)
2233a93a10 [rpc] Return fee and vsize from testmempoolaccept (codeShark149)
Pull request description:
From #19093 and resolves#19057.
Difference from #19093: return `vsize` and `fees` object (similar to `getmempoolentry`) when the test accept is successful. Updates release-notes.md.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
utACK 23c35bf005
fjahr:
utACK 23c35bf
instagibbs:
reACK 23c35bf005
Tree-SHA512: dcb81b7b817a4684e9076bc5d427a6f2d549d2edc66544e718260c4b5f8f1d5ae1d47b754175e9f0c8a3bd8371ce116c2dca0583588d513a7d733d5d614f2b04
a5f5374b43 test: create default wallet in extended tests (Sjors Provoost)
Pull request description:
This was omitted from #15454
ACKs for top commit:
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK a5f5374b43. Just reverted a leftover diff since last review
gzhao408:
utACK a5f5374b43
Tree-SHA512: 573e215e3665cd23f58417a7ebf66a73420645450f8bc51a7bbb36dea6bfda838f6131bb4456aea35d9dac57b61741bba704a7df8ed11409c21fb8001ec55588
d26f0648f1 Tell users how to load or create a wallet when no wallet is loaded (Andrew Chow)
1bee1e6269 Do not create default wallet (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
Instead of automatically creating and loading a default wallet, users should instead explicitly create their wallet or load it on start.
Builds on #19754 which provides the `load_on_startup` behavior for the GUI.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
Manual test and very light code review ACK d26f0648f1
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK d26f0648f1. Just suggested changes to first commit (reusing MakeWalletDatabase and adding release notes), no changes to second commit
jonatack:
ACK d26f0648f1 light code review, debug build, ran tests, did manual testing with testnet, rebased on master, on linux debian.
Tree-SHA512: 091d785aef64736f7df661c576e815a87f3d029cfa32f3a75ba86fc25795f10b022ab3ae15c5b61a10b8cee16f5650f15cd79cbd6127e5e3ccbef631966d3c30
