fa5bb37611 rpc: Use EnsureAnyArgsman in rpc/blockchain (MarcoFalke)
fa98b6f644 rpc: Add EnsureArgsman helper (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
This refactor doesn't change anything for the rpc layer, but it helps a bit with removing gArgs (See #21005)
ACKs for top commit:
shaavan:
Code Review ACK fa5bb37611
Tree-SHA512: 18f9cc90830a168acb94452b541b6e97ba9a50a0f4834698a16994c3884c833dc606e36a5538a16352e5e5cc43d3ac77cb498f877f8f5bc5dd52fa84f8bf2056
059f88b6a9 Add RPC help for getblock verbosity level 3 (Kiminuo)
1bdd5f6322 Address review comments from #22918 (Kiminuo)
Pull request description:
This is a follow-up PR to #22918 which addresses review comments (first commit). The second commit adds missing RPC help for verbosity level 3.
ACKs for top commit:
pg156:
ACK 059f88b6a9
laanwj:
re-ACK 059f88b6a9
Tree-SHA512: f27d53ac34b93a304ef5668701ed2b5c986a926bc8ad0df4de89695fc9e1df26acb008611451319ea897658acd9c56c6a0555d60359960c9cd28238ebefa2d50
This commit does following changes to time variables in net_processing.h:
- Used {} initialization.
- Uses universal initializer auto.
- Uses chrono::literals
The reason for these changes is to make code simpler, and easier to
understand and rationalize.
fa7efc915b Fixup style of moved code (MarcoFalke)
fade2a44f4 Move BlockManager to node/blockstorage (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
`BlockManager` is responsible for reading and writing block(headers). So move it to the existing `blockstorage` module in `node`. Also, move validation code unrelated to block-storage out from `BlockManager`.
ACKs for top commit:
ryanofsky:
Code review obvious ACK fa7efc915b
Tree-SHA512: 0197943d818e5f59e743b07fbb92e7661bff90081127a41e35e5692ce49d6f6a7872448670b0da282f7714580a45c8d93e571a67177c8b5f785ce9edefe834c5
29e1794ba5 build, qt: No need to set inapplicable QPA backend for Android (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
The current workflow looks weird. At first, the inapplicable `xcb` QPA backend is set in Qt `configure` options. Then the correct `android` QPA backend is forced via the `QT_QPA_PLATFORM` environment variable.
Using the default QPA backend, which is `android` for Android devices, is just fine.
ACKs for top commit:
icota:
re-tACK 29e1794ba5
Tree-SHA512: 08ed7d05209c1bedc1a71de5ea3be5d86b40319a164dceb9191f7a4dfe78f2f951778b90421335e73e71a798a57bdf046aa96876762d338b600037bd7ee27b52
b4adc5ad67 [bugfix] update lockpoints correctly during reorg (glozow)
b6002b07a3 MOVEONLY: update_lock_points to txmempool.h (glozow)
Pull request description:
I introduced a bug in #22677 (sorry! 😅)
Mempool entries cache `LockPoints`, containing the first height/blockhash/`CBlockIndex*` at which the transaction becomes valid. During a reorg, we re-check timelocks on all mempool entries using `CheckSequenceLocks(useExistingLockPoints=false)` and remove any now-invalid entries. `CheckSequenceLocks()` also mutates the `LockPoints` passed in, and we update valid entries' `LockPoints` using `update_lock_points`. Thus, `update_lock_points(lp)` needs to be called right after `CheckSequenceLocks(lp)`, otherwise we lose the data in `lp`. I incorrectly assumed they could be called in separate loops.
The incorrect behavior introduced is: if we have a reorg in which a timelocked mempool transaction is still valid but becomes valid at a different block, the cached `LockPoints` will be incorrect.
This PR fixes the bug, adds a test, and adds an assertion at the end of `removeForReorg()` to check that all mempool entries' lockpoints are valid. You can reproduce the bug by running the test added in the [test] commit on the code before the [bugfix] commit.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
ACK b4adc5ad67
vasild:
ACK b4adc5ad67
mzumsande:
Code Review ACK b4adc5ad67
hebasto:
ACK b4adc5ad67
MarcoFalke:
re-ACK b4adc5ad67🏁
Tree-SHA512: 16b59f6ff8140d0229079ca1c6b04f2f4a00a2e49931275150e4f3fe5ac4ec109698b083fa6b223ba9511f328271cc1ab081263669d5da020af7fee83c13e401
fadd73037e refactor: Remove implicit-integer-sign-change suppressions in validation.cpp (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
A file-wide suppression is problematic because it will wave through future violations, potentially bugs.
Fix that by using per-statement casts.
ACKs for top commit:
shaavan:
ACK fadd73037e
theStack:
Code-review ACK fadd73037e
Tree-SHA512: a8a05613be35382b92d7970f958a4e8f4332432056eaa9d72f6719495134b93aaaeea692899d9035654d0e0cf56bcd759671eeeacfd0535582c0ea048ab58a56
4523d28b6b [test] compare filter and header with the result of the getblockfilter RPC (Niklas Gögge)
3a2464f216 [rest] drop superfluous rpc serializations flags for block filters (Niklas Gögge)
064abd14a5 [rest] add a more verbose error message for invalid header counts (Niklas Gögge)
83b8f3a896 [refactor] various style fix-ups (Niklas Gögge)
Pull request description:
This PR addresses unresolved review comments from [#17631](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17631).
This includes:
* various style fix-ups
* returning a more verbose error message for invalid header counts
* removing superfluous rpc serializations flags for block filters
* improving the test to include comparing the block filters returned from the rest with the ones returned from the `getblockfilter` RPC.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
ACK 4523d28b6b
brunoerg:
tACK 4523d28b6b
Tree-SHA512: 634e6b2ae3e1d5f31675a50cfe11a5e74bf5a51b9e7b512d9e18879bf2ed424fc0ac6ec633023f192e3ad12cf0c73b0b51de79dd7ec00844dba3e1493d823b8c
fa1a51cbc1 doc: testnet3 was not reset and is doing BIP30 checks again (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
ACKs for top commit:
theStack:
ACK fa1a51cbc1
Tree-SHA512: 793eccda583a3edb056b142c36a09a5c867f61d90b96e15e6643417d62eb651eb2f3429c5f245bdb062d18ab9bb05b5048c0888aa5a492cb7bb21a2f3f52324e
The logic of these functions is already covered by existing unit tests
using publicly exposed functions of the interface.
Therefore, removing them does not decrease test coverage.
Switches to AddrMan for tests that use no features of AddrManTest.
Also removes unusued AddrManTest variables
Co-Authored-By: Amiti Uttarwar <amiti@uttarwar.org>
fa50d8b66e doc: Remove TODO comment in tx_verify (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
The comment has no clear motivation, so it seems better to remove it and fix it when there is a reason.
An alternative (if a fix isn't possible when there is a clear motivation) would be to create an issue thread for easier discussion.
ACKs for top commit:
fanquake:
ACK fa50d8b66e
Tree-SHA512: e9c25bab46a73b7c2db288c62ed9838a5e794b3b72db494173f4502da60b58dec4383064964c0842932cd30e4251fc01ad0c28681e2ef6cb442482eea2bad595
fa993d0e7e doc: Fix -changetype help text (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
This was forgotten in commit 3ac38058ce
ACKs for top commit:
shaavan:
ACK fa993d0e7e
w0xlt:
ACK fa993d0
josibake:
ACK fa993d0e7e
Tree-SHA512: 9f84b1168e3b3ab06e5c1f4915a1874598b273099eb5878ed28c3a66f1484e34c836fd3c68c4131bee541f3428052f6b66e02b192170752d1082de689d44cd4d
fa562fdd5e doc: Remove fixed TODO from wallet/feebumper (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Fixed in commit 9522b53a91
ACKs for top commit:
shaavan:
ACK fa562fdd5e
Tree-SHA512: 968fda0994020c369b7acfc01db109d0f50d4c137fadf533ae55d0e14a353ebbde4320e798cf89e5489f1020c459712631b3967976c1f73d99db8a2d1cbad982
7b481f015a Fix Racy ParseOpCode function initialization (Jeremy Rubin)
Pull request description:
If multiple callers call ParseOpCode concurrently it will cause a race condition. We can either move the static to it's own area and require init be called explicitly, or just allow concurrent first callers to race to fill in an atomic variable that never changes thereafter. The second approach is taken here.
Static initialization *is* threadsafe, but only insofar as definining the variable being guaranteed to be called once. This is used incorrectly here.
practicalswift --> are there tools we can deploy to catch usage like this?
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
re-ACK 7b481f015a 🗣
Tree-SHA512: cbf9dc3af26d7335305026f32ce8472a018309b89b3d81a67357e59fbeed72c37b5b8a6e30325ea68145c3b2403867be82de01f22decefb6e6717cf0c0045633
ff5f6dea53 scripted-diff: Rename interfaces::WalletClient to interfaces::WalletLoader (Russell Yanofsky)
Pull request description:
Name has been confusing since it was introduced, and it was pointed in recent review club https://bitcoincore.reviews/10102 that it was particularly unclear how `interfaces::WalletClient` was different from `interfaces::Wallet`.
ACKs for top commit:
w0xlt:
ACK ff5f6de
Tree-SHA512: 26fa10baa457e76da1933adab187e9be61b8d76cff1cf2c73ad4320461c7e31fb9db07b7c2486998294826beb4a1aca255c14903920b443db6213e653c5f7e0a
