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

backport: Merge bitcoin#20998, 20832, 21077, 20663, 20915 #5764

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Feb 1, 2024

Conversation

vijaydasmp
Copy link

@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp commented Dec 13, 2023

Bitcoin backports

@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp changed the title backport: backport: Merge bitcoin#20998, 20832, 20226 Dec 13, 2023
@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp force-pushed the bp22_24 branch 2 times, most recently from 07336b6 to 0a8df11 Compare December 14, 2023 03:31
@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp changed the title backport: Merge bitcoin#20998, 20832, 20226 backport: Merge bitcoin#20998, 20832 Dec 14, 2023
@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp force-pushed the bp22_24 branch 3 times, most recently from 1f20acd to a86ff45 Compare December 15, 2023 00:37
@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp changed the title backport: Merge bitcoin#20998, 20832 backport: Merge bitcoin#20998, 20832, 21077, 20944 Dec 16, 2023
Copy link

This pull request has conflicts, please rebase.

@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp changed the title backport: Merge bitcoin#20998, 20832, 21077, 20944 backport: Merge bitcoin#20998, 20832, 21077 Jan 19, 2024
@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp changed the title backport: Merge bitcoin#20998, 20832, 21077 backport: Merge bitcoin#20998, 20832, 21077, 21114, 20663, 20915 Jan 21, 2024
@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp marked this pull request as ready for review January 24, 2024 04:20
@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp changed the title backport: Merge bitcoin#20998, 20832, 21077, 21114, 20663, 20915 backport: Merge bitcoin#20998, 20832, 21077, 20663, 20915 Jan 30, 2024
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.

missed one more thing

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

Copy link
Member

@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

utACK for merge via merge commit

MarcoFalke and others added 3 commits February 1, 2024 11:09
7487bc9 Fix BlockToJsonVerbose benchmark (Martin Ankerl)

Pull request description:

  Currently it was not possible to run just the BlockToJsonVerbose benchmark because it did not set up everything it needed, running `bench_bitcoin -filter=BlockToJsonVerbose` caused this assert to fail:

  ```
  bench_bitcoin: chainparams.cpp:506: const CChainParams& Params(): Assertion `globalChainParams' failed.
  ```

  Initializing TestingSetup fixes this.

ACKs for top commit:
  theStack:
    Tested ACK 7487bc9 🐎

Tree-SHA512: 27b9702cb4bacc0475710f7b31f41844e83b8a0787685380749505d179aba724728604d4e4e2e3b3cb38cde88ab12f170881b5d3eb615872ee84632e85312166
8f0b64f Better error messages for invalid addresses (Bezdrighin)

Pull request description:

  This PR addresses bitcoin#20809.

  We add more detailed error messages in case an invalid address is provided inside the 'validateaddress' and 'getaddressinfo' RPC calls. This also covers the case when a user provides an address from a wrong network.

  We also add a functional test to test the new error messages.

ACKs for top commit:
  kristapsk:
    ACK 8f0b64f
  meshcollider:
    Code review ACK 8f0b64f

Tree-SHA512: ca0f806ab573e96b79e98d9f8c810b81fa99c638d9b5e4d99dc18c8bd2568e6a802ec305fdfb2983574a97a19a46fd53b77645f8078fb77e9deb24ad2a22cf93
…tions

eecb7ab [doc] clarify -peertimeout and -timeout descriptions (gzhao408)

Pull request description:

  The debug-only option `-peertimeout` is used to delay `InactivityCheck()`, whereas the `-timeout` option specifies socket timeouts (`nConnectTimeout`). The current descriptions are a bit misleading and hard to tell apart. I think it would save dev/review time to update them 🤷

ACKs for top commit:
  MarcoFalke:
    ACK eecb7ab nice doc fixup
  jnewbery:
    ACK eecb7ab

Tree-SHA512: 71d2e6c31664b9f7f0b053ecf3be21c6c55472553fa7478d8526ba3be8d54979bceafca63d87b8b2488c11f409c332ac795da613ff8101546b18d9cd8bcceb50
MarcoFalke added 2 commits February 1, 2024 11:09
fac726b doc: Fixup docs in fuzz/script_assets_test_minimizer.cpp (MarcoFalke)
fafca47 fuzz: Hide script_assets_test_minimizer (MarcoFalke)

Pull request description:

  This is not an actual fuzz target. It is a hack to exploit the built-in capability of fuzz engines to measure coverage.

ACKs for top commit:
  practicalswift:
    cr ACK fac726b: patch looks correct and touches only `src/test/fuzz/`

Tree-SHA512: 0652dd8d9e95746b0906be4044467435d8204a34a30366ae9bdb75b9cb0788d429db7cedf2760fd543565d9d4f7ee206873ed10a29dd715a792a26337f65b53c
fa4bc89 fuzz: Fail if message type is not fuzzed (MarcoFalke)
faefed8 fuzz: Count message type fuzzers before main() (MarcoFalke)

Pull request description:

  `process_message_*` is a nice way to quickly fuzz a single message type. However, the offered message types are outdated and all BIPs implemented in the last years are missing.

  Fix that by adding them and failing when the number of message types don't add up.

ACKs for top commit:
  practicalswift:
    cr ACK fa4bc89: patch looks correct and touches only `src/test/fuzz/`

Tree-SHA512: 8c98374b50fb4ab2ff2550daeab4c6e9f486bfe847466d217d4bc97d119adc99a82b87b56f47535b1cf8f844232bc7fa1230712a9147cda514ae78851556f988
@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta merged commit 45bcc0d into dashpay:develop Feb 1, 2024
4 of 5 checks passed
@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 added this to the 20.1 milestone Feb 1, 2024
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.

4 participants