chore: merge master 21.0.0 back into develop #6161
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
… user, http-code, time of running 1a691bd feat: add logging for RPC HTTP requests: command, user, http-code, time of running (Konstantin Akimov) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented Currently there is no way to gather stats for http rpc in dash core. This PR aim to change it. ## What was done? Implemented some basic stats for each RPC request: - rpc command - flag "is external" - http status - time to serve query (rpc time, not http time) ## How Has This Been Tested? See new logs: ```log [httpworker.0] [httprpc.cpp:100] [~RpcHttpRequest] -- HTTP RPC request handled: user=platform-user command=getbestblockhash is_external=false status=200 elapsed_time_ms=0 [httpworker.2] [httprpc.cpp:100] [~RpcHttpRequest] -- HTTP RPC request handled: user=platform-user command=quorum is_external=false status=500 elapsed_time_ms=0 [httpworker.3] [httprpc.cpp:100] [~RpcHttpRequest] -- HTTP RPC request handled: user=platform-user command= is_external=false status=401 elapsed_time_ms=0 [httpworker.3] [httprpc.cpp:100] [~RpcHttpRequest] -- HTTP RPC request handled: user=platform-user command=getbestblockhash is_external=true status=200 elapsed_time_ms=28 [httpworker.0] [httprpc.cpp:100] [~RpcHttpRequest] -- HTTP RPC request handled: user=operator command=getbestblockhash is_external=false status=200 elapsed_time_ms=0 ``` ## Breaking Changes N/A It doesn't change behavior of rpc server and http server. ## 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 ACKs for top commit: PastaPastaPasta: utACK 1a691bd Tree-SHA512: b62fceedb9a901e87c23c4aa6e6dfa7226d44da84a081ea245b40e7ff887103302147cebe0f7ff90bf9c8d4fa9ecafbaa6f25f39d2008f62c4f2beeef2877b57
…lets c944908 refactor: simplify implementation of function CWallet::IsLocked (Konstantin Akimov) 685cf34 fix: unlock descriptor wallet for mixing-only (Konstantin Akimov) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented As [noticed by kwvg](dashpay#6090 (review)), mixing doesn't work with descriptor wallets if do "unlock only for mixing". This PR is aiming to fix this issue. dashpay/dash-issues#59 ## What was done? Removed default argument "bool mixing = false" from WalletStorage interface, Refactored a logic of CWallet::IsLocked to make it shorter, clearer and unified with bitcoin. ## How Has This Been Tested? A. Run Dash-Qt with descriptor wallet, run mixing, enter passphrase. The wallet is partially unlocked (for mixing only) - possible to see yellow lock in status. Mixing happens. B. Open "send transaction dialog", try to send a transaction: the app asks password to unlock wallet as expected. Though, I am not sure how exactly to test that **all** rpc are indeed locked when descriptor wallet is unlocked for mixing only. ## 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 ACKs for top commit: UdjinM6: LGTM, ~utACK~ light ACK c944908 kwvg: ACK c944908 PastaPastaPasta: utACK c944908 Tree-SHA512: 236c895dd75042449282b051e90781ace1c941a3b2c34bb29ddadb6e62ba9c8d57c2a677ed98847630ff7fb6df4e14d2b59f3473d8f299ec104afeeb8103930c
…r descriptor wallets a42e9df fix: createwallet to require 'load_on_startup' for descriptor wallets (Konstantin Akimov) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented RPC `createwallet` has changed list of arguments: `createwallet "wallet_name" ( disable_private_keys blank "passphrase" avoid_reuse descriptors load_on_startup )` since dashpay#5965 `load_on_startup` used to be an argument 5 but now it has a number 6. Both arguments 5 and 6 are boolean and it can confuse an user: they may even not notice that something wrong when it meant to be "load on startup" but got "descriptor wallet" which is not expected. See also previous attempt to resolve issue: dashpay#6029 ## What was done? To prevent confusion if user is not aware about this breaking changes, the RPC createwallet throws an exception if user trying to create descriptor wallet but has not mentioned load_on_startup. This requirement can be removed when major amount of users updated to v21. ## How Has This Been Tested? Run unit/functional tests Tested with CLI: ``` $ createwallet "tmp-create" true true "" false true RPC createwallet would not accept creating descriptor wallets without specifying 'load_on_startup' flag. It is required explicitly in v21 due to breaking changes in createwallet RPC (code -8) $ createwallet "tmp-create" true true "" false true true { "name": "tmp-create", "warning": "Empty string given as passphrase, wallet will not be encrypted.\nWallet is an experimental descriptor wallet" } ``` ## Breaking Changes You can't more pass 'descriptor=NN' without dashpay#5965 which has not been released yet. ## Checklist: - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [x] 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 ACKs for top commit: UdjinM6: utACK a42e9df PastaPastaPasta: utACK a42e9df thephez: utACK a42e9df Tree-SHA512: bf57fed40d04a32e756e4f8bfabbe39c0cbf87275546c92f4efc19523bc3c5dd3ddc5a884d67285971dc301a6c5808bef979db52c35645ca2db0810046fe1bdc
…turn enum in CL verifying code 0133c98 feat: add functional test for submitchainlock far ahead in future (Konstantin Akimov) 6004e06 feat: return enum in RecoveredSig verifying code, apply for RPC submitchainlock (Konstantin Akimov) 130b6d1 refactor: replace static private member method to static method (Konstantin Akimov) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented Currently by result of `submitchainlock` impossible to distinct a situation when a signature is invalid and when a core is far behind and just doesn't know about signing quorum yet. This PR aims to fix this issue, as requested by shumkov for needs of platform: > mailformed signature and can’t verify signature due to unknown quorum is the same error? > possible to distingush ? ## What was done? Return enum in CL verifying code `chainlock_handler.VerifyChainLock`. The RPC `submitchainlock` now returns error with code=-1 and message `no quorum found. Current tip height: {N} hash: {HASH}` ## How Has This Been Tested? Functional test `feature_llmq_chainlocks.py` is updated ## Breaking Changes `submitchainlock` return one more error code - not really a breaking change though, because v21 hasn't released yet. ## Checklist: - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [x] 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 ACKs for top commit: UdjinM6: utACK 0133c98 PastaPastaPasta: utACK 0133c98 Tree-SHA512: 794ba410efa57aaa66c47a67914deed97c1d060326e5d11a722c9233a8447f5e9215aa4a5ca401cb2199b8fc445144b2b2a692fc35494bf3296a74e9e115bda7
…s for platform needs 85abbb9 chore: add release notes for composite command for whitelist (Konstantin Akimov) 78ad778 feat: test composite commands in functional test for whitelist (Konstantin Akimov) a102a59 feat: add support of composite commands in RPC'c whitelists (Konstantin Akimov) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented dashpay/dash-issues#66 dashpay/dash-issues#65 ## What was done? Our composite commands such as "quorum list" have been refactored to make them truly compatible with other features, such as whitelist, see dashpay#6052 dashpay#6051 dashpay#6055 and other related PRs This PR makes whitelist feature to be compatible with composite commands. Instead implementing additional users such "dapi" better to provide universal way which do not require new build for every new API that has been used by platform, let's simplify things. Platform at their side can use config such as this one (created based on shumkov's example): ``` rpc: { host: '127.0.0.1', port: 9998, users: [ { user: 'dashmate', password: 'rpcpassword', whitelist: null, lowPriority: false, }, { username: 'platform-dapi', password: 'rpcpassword', whitelist: [], lowPriority: true, }, { username: 'platform-drive-consensus', password: 'rpcpassword', whitelist: [getbestchainlock,getblockchaininfo,getrawtransaction,submitchainlock,verifychainlock,protx_listdiff,quorum_listextended,quorum_info,getassetunlockstatuses,sendrawtransaction,mnsync_status] lowPriority: false, }, { username: 'platform-drive-other', password: 'rpcpassword', whitelist: [getbestchainlock,getblockchaininfo,getrawtransaction,submitchainlock,verifychainlock,protx_listdiff,quorum_listextended,quorum_info,getassetunlockstatuses,sendrawtransaction,mnsync_status] ], lowPriority: true, }, ], allowIps: ['127.0.0.1', '172.16.0.0/12', '192.168.0.0/16'], }, ``` ## How Has This Been Tested? Updated functional tests, see commits ## 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 - [x] 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 ACKs for top commit: UdjinM6: LGTM, utACK 85abbb9 PastaPastaPasta: utACK 85abbb9 Tree-SHA512: 88608179c347420269880c352cf9f3b46272f3fc62e8e7158042e53ad69dc460d5210a1f89e1e09081d090250c87fcececade88e2ddec09f73f1175836d7867b
…says there is a default that doesn't exist 60e36b7 fix: adjust incorrect parameter description that says there is a default that doesn't exist (pasta) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented This default doesn't actually exist in code. ## What was done? Remove default from text ## 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)_ ACKs for top commit: UdjinM6: utACK 60e36b7 Tree-SHA512: 658eb2cf101d0450619461b7ffe6069de5c04c1fdcca216713f9374cc1e60413ec9b96c3a2931fb69a4c2f8277dd6677100270960a58197da3b92dffb1e9e327
…msign 2db69d7 chore: add release notes for "quorum platformsign" (Konstantin Akimov) 283c5f8 feat: create new composite command "quorum platformsign" (Konstantin Akimov) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented It splits from dashpay#6100 With just whitelist it is impossible to limit the RPC `quorum sign` to use only one specific quorum type, this PR aim to provide ability for quorum signing for platform quorum only. ## What was done? Implemented a new composite command "quorum platformsign" This composite command let to limit quorum type for signing for case of whitelist. After that old way to limit platform commands can be deprecated - dashpay#6105 ## How Has This Been Tested? Updated a functional tests to use platform signing for Asset Unlocks feature. ## 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 - [x] 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 ACKs for top commit: UdjinM6: utACK 2db69d7 PastaPastaPasta: utACK 2db69d7 Tree-SHA512: b0dff9934137c4faa85664058e1e77f85067cc8d931e6d76ee5b9e610164ac8b0609736d5f09475256cb78d65bf92466624d784f0b13d20136df7e75613662cb
db82817 Merge dashpay#6106: feat: create new composite quorum-command platformsign (pasta) a45e6df Merge dashpay#6104: fix: adjust incorrect parameter description that says there is a default that doesn't exist (pasta) 7330982 Merge dashpay#6100: feat: make whitelist works with composite commands for platform needs (pasta) 9998ffd Merge dashpay#6096: feat: split type of error in submitchainlock - return enum in CL verifying code (pasta) cdf7a25 Merge dashpay#6095: fix: createwallet to require 'load_on_startup' for descriptor wallets (pasta) c1c2c55 Merge dashpay#6092: fix: mixing for partially unlocked descriptor wallets (pasta) 1175486 Merge dashpay#6073: feat: add logging for RPC HTTP requests: command, user, http-code, time of running (pasta) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented Backports a set of 6 PRs needed in rc.2 ## What was done? Backported PRs with labels ## How Has This Been Tested? ## Breaking Changes ## 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)_ ACKs for top commit: kwvg: LGTM, utACK db82817 UdjinM6: utACK db82817 Tree-SHA512: 1b242c5db04bd5873ef622543bc2a25e29567f15962c677ea51ff05cb784291968d18f419bf611c206b912e8f15d687208ae75af33aab89038b6f0167d99c4bf
…etohd edge cases 69c37f4 rpc: make sure `upgradetohd` always has the passphrase for `UpgradeToHD` (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh) 619b640 wallet: unify HD chain generation in CWallet (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh) 163d318 wallet: unify HD chain generation in LegacyScriptPubKeyMan (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh) Pull request description: ## Motivation When filming demo footage for dashpay#6093, I realized that if I tried to create an encrypted blank legacy wallet and run `upgradetohd [mnemonic]`, the client would crash. ``` dash@b9c6631a824d:/src/dash$ ./src/qt/dash-qt QStandardPaths: XDG_RUNTIME_DIR not set, defaulting to '/tmp/runtime-dash' dash-qt: wallet/scriptpubkeyman.cpp:399: void LegacyScriptPubKeyMan::GenerateNewCryptedHDChain(const SecureString &, const SecureString &, CKeyingMaterial): Assertion `res' failed. Posix Signal: Aborted No debug information available for stacktrace. You should add debug information and then run: dash-qt -printcrashinfo=bvcgc43iinzgc43ijfxgm3ybaadwiyltnawxc5avkbxxg2lyebjwsz3omfwduicbmjxxe5dfmqaaa=== ``` The expected set of operations when performing privileged operations is to first use `walletpassphrase [passphrase] [time]` to unlock the wallet and then perform the privileged operation. This routine that applies for almost all privileged RPCs doesn't apply here, the unlock state of the wallet has no bearing on constructing an encrypted HD chain as it needs to be encrypted with the master key stored in the wallet, which in turn is encrypted with a key derived from the passphrase (i.e., `upgradetohd` imports **always** need the passphrase, if encrypted). You might have noticed that I used `upgradetohd [mnemonic]` instead of the correct syntax, `upgradetohd [mnemonic] "" [passphrase]` that is supposed to be used when supplying a mnemonic to an encrypted wallet, because when you run the former, you don't get told to enter the passphrase into the RPC command, you're told. ``` Error: Please enter the wallet passphrase with walletpassphrase first. ``` Which tells you to treat it like any other routine privileged operation and follow the routine as mentioned above. This is where insufficient validation starts rearing its head, we only validate the passphrase if we're supplied one even though we should be demanding one if the wallet is encrypted and it isn't supplied. We didn't supply a passphrase because we're following the normal routine, we unlocked the wallet so `EnsureWalletIsUnlocked()` is happy, so now the following happens. ``` upgradetohd() | Insufficient validation has allowed us to supply a blank passphrase | for an encrypted wallet |- CWallet::UpgradeToHD() |- CWallet::GenerateNewHDChainEncrypted() | We get our hands on vMasterKey by generating the key from our passphrase | and using it to unlock vCryptedMasterKey. | | There's one small problem, we don't know if the output of CCrypter::Decrypt | isn't just gibberish. Since we don't have a passphrase, whatever came from | CCrypter::SetKeyFromPassphrase isn't the decryption key, meaning, the | vMasterKey we just got is gibberish |- LegacyScriptPubKeyMan::GenerateNewCryptedHDChain() |- res = LegacyScriptPubKeyMan::EncryptHDChain() | |- EncryptSecret() | |- CCrypter::SetKey() | This is where everything unravels, the gibberish key's size doesn't | match WALLET_CRYPTO_KEY_SIZE, it's no good for encryption. We bail out. |- assert(res) We assume are inputs are safe so there's no real reason we should crash. Except our inputs aren't safe, so we crash. Welp! :c ``` This problem has existed for a while but didn't cause the client to crash, in v20.1.1 (1951298), trying to do the same thing would return you a vague error ``` Failed to generate encrypted HD wallet (code -4) ``` In the process of working on mitigating this crash, another edge case was discovered, where if the wallet was unlocked and an incorrect passphrase was provided to `upgradetohd`, the user would not receive any feedback that they entered the wrong passphrase and the client would similarly crash. ``` upgradetohd() | We've been supplied a passphrase, so we can try and validate it by | trying to unlock the wallet with it. If it fails, we know we got the | wrong passphrase. |- CWallet::Unlock() | | Before we bother unlocking the wallet, we should check if we're | | already unlocked, if we are, we can just say "unlock successful". | |- CWallet::IsLocked() | | Wallet is indeed unlocked. | |- return true; | The validation method we just tried to use has a bail-out mechanism | that we don't account for, the "unlock" succeded so I guess we have the | right passphrase. [...] (continue call chain as mentioned earlier) |- assert(res) Oh... ``` This pull request aims to resolve crashes caused by the above two edge cases. ## Additional Information As this PR was required me to add additional guardrails on `GenerateNewCryptedHDChain()` and `GenerateNewHDChainEncrypted()`, it was taken as an opportunity to resolve a TODO ([source](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/9456d0761d8883cc293dffba11dacded517b5f8f/src/wallet/wallet.cpp#L5028-L5038)). The following mitigations have been implemented. * Validating `vMasterKey` size (any key not of `WALLET_CRYPTO_KEY_SIZE` size cannot be used for encryption and so, cannot be a valid key) * Validating `secureWalletPassphrase`'s presence to catch attempts at passing a blank value (an encrypted wallet cannot have a blank passphrase) * Using `Unlock()` to validate the correctness of `vMasterKey`. (the two other instances of iterating through `mapMasterKeys` use `Unlock()`, see [here](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/1394c41c8d0afb8370726488a2888be30d238148/src/wallet/wallet.cpp#L5498-L5500) and [here](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/1394c41c8d0afb8370726488a2888be30d238148/src/wallet/wallet.cpp#L429-L431)) * `Lock()`'ing the wallet before `Unlock()`'ing the wallet to avoid the `IsLocked()` bail-out condition and then restoring to the previous lock state afterwards. * Add an `IsCrypted()` check to see if `upgradetohd`'s `walletpassphrase` is allowed to be empty. ## Checklist: - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests - [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation **(note: N/A)** - [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_ ACKs for top commit: knst: utACK 69c37f4 UdjinM6: utACK 69c37f4 PastaPastaPasta: utACK 69c37f4 Tree-SHA512: 4bda1f7155511447d6672bbaa22b909f5e2fc7efd1fd8ae1c61e0cdbbf3f6c28f6e8c1a8fe2a270fdedff7279322c93bf0f8e01890aff556fb17288ef6907b3e
878bce0 docs: update SECURITY.md supported versions (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh) Pull request description: ## Additional Information Updates the supported versions list in `SECURITY.md` ## Checklist: - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code **(note: N/A)** - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas **(note: N/A)** - [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests **(note: N/A)** - [x] 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)_ ACKs for top commit: PastaPastaPasta: utACK 878bce0 UdjinM6: utACK 878bce0 knst: utACK 878bce0 Tree-SHA512: d941a3ca0792b2f08f68cab562a35d869d8e93f627918a25a9753955b6103d1515899b0ca50ff936c966b9f9fd603e12d27b03267361c8f1030a31f9fffdf2ae
…lt branch to `develop` 8a66af2 docs: add release notes notifying change of default branch to `develop` (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh) Pull request description: ## Additional Information Add a release note notifying the new default branch as `develop`. ## Checklist: - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code **(note: N/A)** - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas **(note: N/A)** - [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests **(note: N/A)** - [x] 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)_ ACKs for top commit: PastaPastaPasta: utACK 8a66af2 UdjinM6: utACK 8a66af2 Tree-SHA512: 82212ce670cf4b0f243a79170914ad04b1d118406ce6402b33dfb42a5ae0865c36de4b816530238bb9ded796c66f3dcc36fa9400ace59b6e7dad24ba47653e4f
e2f56de docs: update manpages for 21.0 (Konstantin Akimov) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented dashpay#6081 ## What was done? run `./contrib/devtools/gen-manpages.sh`, sanitize version name ## 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 - [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone ACKs for top commit: UdjinM6: utACK e2f56de PastaPastaPasta: utACK e2f56de Tree-SHA512: 9b56f7a31279457aed1b7ed0b627d4364f786948f6df3176e24ab73b68d785fc90d9bf6136d7965c1c5b97b589b4d228edd338e666d1999e841c6e544f054c05
a8a3ea0 feat: enable EHF activation of MN_RR on mainnet (Konstantin Akimov) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented dashpay#6081 ## What was done? Removed a code, that disabled MN_RR activation with EHF on Main Net ## How Has This Been Tested? This code is tested on devnet, is in process of testing on testnet. ## Breaking Changes It make MN_RR possible to get active on mainnet. ## 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 ACKs for top commit: UdjinM6: utACK a8a3ea0 PastaPastaPasta: utACK a8a3ea0 Tree-SHA512: 0ae7aecca8463436e952154210cf564333cd77dd1149f7ff88ca144f3b7c434e75e473ea3a6850da1b126efd8a9cece34e46b4bf2b37f5937bcf1f5780e18f50
e1030a0 docs: add release notes for 6140 (pasta) 9ed292a feat: harden all sporks on mainnet to current values (pasta) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented Harden all sporks on the mainnet; they are no longer necessary. Although retaining them might be beneficial in addressing bugs or issues, the greater priority is to protect mainnet by minimizing risks associated with potential centralization or even its perception. Sporks will continue to be valuable for testing on developer networks; however, on mainnet, the risks of maintaining them now outweigh the benefits of retaining them. ## What was done? Adjust CSporkManager::GetSporkValue to always return 0 for sporks in general and 1 for SPORK_21_QUORUM_ALL_CONNECTED specifically. ## How Has This Been Tested? Ran main net node with this patch. Sporks show as expected ## Breaking Changes This is not a breaking change. ## 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)_ ACKs for top commit: knst: utACK e1030a0 UdjinM6: utACK e1030a0 (CI failure is unrelated) Tree-SHA512: f20d0f614b7e9d6eb5606c545d0747a9d415f2905512dd6100a2f9fb00bb6de02c8d5aa74cb41aa39163fde0ab05fe472913acc227b1b4afce7e984f8897940d
85762dc 60%+: bg, ro, vi (UdjinM6) 2d0e68d 80%+: ar, de, es, fi, fr, it, ja, ko, nl, pl, pt, ru, sk, th, tr, zh_CN, zh_TW (UdjinM6) f7992b0 en (UdjinM6) 49fc976 dashstrings (UdjinM6) c8333a5 chore: replace remaining `...` with `…` in translated strings (UdjinM6) ac2e9ea qt: Extract translations correctly from UTF-8 formatted source (Hennadii Stepanov) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented Mostly regular translation updates but with 2 additional fixes: - ac2e9ea is a backport, without it `make translate` fails to update `dashstrings.cpp` properly (but I couldn't figure out which PR it belongs to 🤷♂️ ) - c8333a5 is needed to make it easier to replace all `...` with `…` in `*.ts` files locally to avoid annoying translators (`...` and `…` are visually the same in transifex interface) ## What was done? ## How Has This Been Tested? ## Breaking Changes ## 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)_ ACKs for top commit: PastaPastaPasta: utACK 85762dc Tree-SHA512: c3624d8e5b26b0fd4d488e6988e81000d05bdc66f9e126b5d3fe3c1f6bceaa846ee81dfc7c0d18613b0ac682a94e0b17007e86724e7cc02d9cfce87b22ce6916
dfd144b docs: add v21.0.0 release notes, archive old release notes, delete partials (pasta) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented Add release notes for v21.0.0 ## What was done? See commits ## How Has This Been Tested? ## Breaking Changes ## 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 - [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)_ Top commit has no ACKs. Tree-SHA512: fafe225f7db59ccea6aa998b04204f22b913ab4d0a178737ca2311b093c04be39ce57c2a6ab3e8e0e312a10159118a024371a7315dcb5df3d8651d3535417861
…s, chaintxdata dfe7089 chore: bump assumevalid, minchainwork, checkpoints, chaintxdata (pasta) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented bump assumevalid, minchainwork, checkpoints, chaintxdata in prep for v21 release final ## What was done? ## How Has This Been Tested? Reindex TBD ## 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)_ ACKs for top commit: UdjinM6: utACK dfe7089 kwvg: utACK dfe7089 Tree-SHA512: 34ef58092cbae4389db87e3f4fc9978356abf19ea110575b89663f00c7621091141f138ce03bc21d7deca9f5b86588c1c2e0874aa8a85d7c54efa41a201d51cc
43c3953 chore: update seeds (Konstantin Akimov) 16dd043 chore: added extra onion seeds (provided by pasta) (Konstantin Akimov) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented dashpay#6081 ## What was done? Extra onion seeds are provided by pasta. ```sh dash-cli protx list valid 1 2110129 > protx_list.json # Make sure the onion seeds still work! while IFS= read -r line do address=$(echo $line | cut -d':' -f1) port=$(echo $line | cut -d':' -f2) nc -v -x 127.0.0.1:9050 -z $address $port done < "onion_seeds.txt" python3 makeseeds.py protx_list.json onion_seeds.txt > nodes_main.txt python3 generate-seeds.py . > ../../src/chainparamsseeds.h ``` ## 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 - [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone ACKs for top commit: UdjinM6: utACK 43c3953 PastaPastaPasta: utACK dashpay@43c3953 Tree-SHA512: 8583f030949c6b26b5410eaa4db4f9b85fbe14bc147083861519d9564ae1fff52716b2d8deb233d30ecfb679e778cb2bb2f0ef3dee392cff1986b004b03d9e1e
4969a72 chore: remove trailing whitespaces in release notes (UdjinM6) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/jobs/7421310092 ## What was done? ## How Has This Been Tested? ## Breaking Changes ## 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)_ ACKs for top commit: PastaPastaPasta: utACK 4969a72 Tree-SHA512: 2c85bb45a097543abad3e8f97fd9b7cd847fbfdfd4b4916e24f6725ffc05cad38647ff008dc4a35b188a6db631e6fffcbd535362a794f440d45a678255c13428
cd0a3a6 Merge dashpay#6154: chore: remove trailing whitespaces in release notes (pasta) 6bc60a7 Merge dashpay#6151: chore: update seeds for v21 release (pasta) 88e949a Merge dashpay#6146: chore: bump assumevalid, minchainwork, checkpoints, chaintxdata (pasta) cc14427 Merge dashpay#6144: docs: release notes for v21.0.0 (pasta) 0a8ece1 Merge dashpay#6122: chore: translations 2024-07 (pasta) 146d244 Merge dashpay#6140: feat: harden all sporks on mainnet to current values (pasta) 024d272 Merge dashpay#6126: feat: enable EHF activation of MN_RR on mainnet (pasta) e780b3d Merge dashpay#6125: docs: update manpages for 21.0 (pasta) 5ede23c Merge dashpay#6118: docs: add release notes notifying change of default branch to `develop` (pasta) 1b6fe9c Merge dashpay#6117: docs: update supported versions in SECURITY.md (pasta) 27d20be Merge dashpay#6116: fix: mitigate crashes associated with some upgradetohd edge cases (pasta) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented Backports to v21 for rc.3; there are more PRs to be back ported here ## What was done? see commits ## 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._ - [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 - [x] 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)_ ACKs for top commit: UdjinM6: utACK cd0a3a6 Tree-SHA512: 0a8d027c5952fcb61317cc413a0de1f3152ae675c5690942400c3e4655cc6a803c702a7e1b18d8dac77aa0f483783f5cdbe29d6c0592165c4f0517d6f37b91a4
98a3393 chore: set release to true (pasta) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented Sets release flag to true. ## 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 - [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_ ACKs for top commit: UdjinM6: utACK 98a3393 Tree-SHA512: 2dfe7097eaad936fa426186233e9088c7fe41a33277cee9e4ff88061e9f68ad76741d4e7e6204294687edad9d16083a1af0375b0b572ff144e6051c429860699
knst
approved these changes
Jul 29, 2024
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.
Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Suppressed changes from be83865 so the diff is empty.
What was done?
How Has This Been Tested?
Breaking Changes
Checklist: