Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[v22.0.x] backport: v22.0.0 rc.3 #6447

Merged

Conversation

PastaPastaPasta
Copy link
Member

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

See commits; backports for rc.3

What was done?

How Has This Been Tested?

built locally

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

4629bb9 fix: add missing cs_main annotation for ForceSignalDBUpdate (Konstantin Akimov)
05041a4 fix: force ehf signal db update (UdjinM6)
94d8032 fix: typo name of key (Konstantin Akimov)
9ceba88 style: clang suggestion (Konstantin Akimov)
c6bb9a5 perf: re-use evo data about signals between v20 and mn_rr as non-corrupted (Konstantin Akimov)
7a7c9f1 fix: early EHF and buried EHF are indistinguish (Konstantin Akimov)

Pull request description:

  ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
  It seems as EHF signal will be mined before node is updated, this signal is lost and node can't activate hard-fork anymore.

  ## What was done?
  EHF signals doesn't expire anymore.
  To avoid full re-index key in database is changed.
  Client with enabled "pruned mode" will be required to do re-index.

  Alternate solution - revert this commit 4b046bb and introduce time-out for expiring EHF signals.

  ## How Has This Been Tested?
  Test on my local instance with testnet and mainnet.

  Testing on miner-1 on testnet is done.
  First start of miner took 50 seconds, 29 of them the node was re-scanning blockchain and looking for EHF transaction

  ## Breaking Changes
  It requires re-index for nodes with enabled pruning of blocks.

  ## 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
  - [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_

ACKs for top commit:
  PastaPastaPasta:
    utACK [4629bb9](dashpay@4629bb9)
  UdjinM6:
    utACK 4629bb9

Tree-SHA512: 189533da5726edbcf2d9cf0e9a3957a10ebc223c25fd88aec3aa9095ae2e7d955ea1f7a1384bc2c97a0cc06110c9e38845a8cafdbd56ff9637bb907ddc639850
…should respect `nCoinType`

e5114da fix: coin selection with `include_unsafe` option should respect `nCoinType` (UdjinM6)

Pull request description:

  ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
  The issue was introduced in dashpay#6074 via dashpay@69c5aa8

  ## What was done?

  ## How Has This Been Tested?

  ## Breaking Changes

  ## 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)_

ACKs for top commit:
  PastaPastaPasta:
    utACK e5114da
  kwvg:
    utACK e5114da

Tree-SHA512: 5d4e22f9d2cecf2239185e0f4c9d8b29b995b25b4f53a74d6c9b7929aac6ec918ebfb4029a83b72a003fe42fe82619f7ab4892d620bf5846cadf99f1f0cb0969
36893e4 fix: add platform transfer to "most common" filter on transactions tab (Konstantin Akimov)
d033a3a refactor: change mask from Dec presentation to Hex for transaction filter (Konstantin Akimov)

Pull request description:

  ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
  Follow-up dashpay#6131 - missing 'Platform Transfer' in the list of most common. Reported by splawik.

  ## What was done?
  Updated filter, added comment to prevent similar mistakes in future, present filter in hex for better readability.

  ## How Has This Been Tested?
  Transaction with platform transfer appeared in filter "Most Common"
  ![image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ccc17553-d71a-45f8-be2f-8ce5fb699c1a)
  Also they are added to Overview page (compare screenshots by 'address' field)
  ![image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ea657672-46c8-4a66-a972-15768feb4d57)

  ## 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 36893e4
  PastaPastaPasta:
    utACK 36893e4

Tree-SHA512: e072b78e257b2c262a912a3cc0daebde93aca655edfee9bbf4869f2528f10377d7d234c73c4fd7ab6006e87607d5a7c4eddd7634d55b16d1b3885d0bc48f225a
…sions to prevent concurrent unload

2d7c7f8 fix: do not transfer wallet ownership to CTransactionBuilder{Output} (UdjinM6)
0aeeb85 fix: add missing `AddWallet` call in `TestLoadWallet` (UdjinM6)
e800d9d fix: hold wallet shared pointer in CJ Manager/Sessions to prevent concurrent unload (UdjinM6)

Pull request description:

  ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
  dashpay#6440 (comment)

  ## What was done?

  ## How Has This Been Tested?

  ## Breaking Changes

  ## 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)_

ACKs for top commit:
  PastaPastaPasta:
    utACK 2d7c7f8

Tree-SHA512: 308e3bed077baa2167b7f9d81b87e5a61a113e4d465706548f303dfc499bc072d4e823e85772e591a879986b0fb0413d5afe0e3995e1f939fa772b29adc0300d
Copy link
Collaborator

@kwvg kwvg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ACK c7b0d80

Copy link

@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

utACK c7b0d80

@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta merged commit e0151e3 into dashpay:v22.0.x Dec 3, 2024
18 of 20 checks passed
@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta deleted the v22.0.0-rc.3-backports branch December 3, 2024 18:57
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