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
In addition to adding more specificity to the log statement about the type of
connection, this change also consolidates two statements into one. Previously,
the second one should have never been hit, since block-relay connections would
match the "!IsInboundConn()" condition and return early.
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.
Recognizing addresses from those networks allows us to accept and gossip
them, even though we don't know how to connect to them (yet).
Co-authored-by: eriknylund <erik@daychanged.com>
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
fc7f84a9ca tests: Add fuzzing harness for Keccak and SHA3_256 (practicalswift)
Pull request description:
Add fuzzing harness for Keccak and SHA3_256.
See [`doc/fuzzing.md`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/fuzzing.md) for information on how to fuzz Bitcoin Core. Don't forget to contribute any coverage increasing inputs you find to the [Bitcoin Core fuzzing corpus repo](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/qa-assets).
Happy fuzzing :)
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
uACK fc7f84a9ca
elichai:
utACK :) fc7f84a9ca
Tree-SHA512: 01e1610e1c178d5f42578e2dd5644a4165596db34cf5037d574a5285e0ace4b06dc33ab81a308595246117537fe175294efd4bfc174ffc2e8eac98f0ec9dd3e9
e1fdd2963b Test batch rpc with params (Gregory Sanders)
Pull request description:
Useful as an example and test case.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK e1fdd2963b
theStack:
ACK e1fdd2963b
Tree-SHA512: 2d2ba8960916342b264a14624857d6dd10005be12efafb3e970b82656f721c8f3700ebc9b8809de1b2f887d482b772043504aeaeebc7f2e1c8203f076a451526
a8a64acaf3 [BroadcastTransaction] Remove unsafe move operator (Amiti Uttarwar)
125c038126 [p2p] Remove dead code (Amiti Uttarwar)
fc66d0a65c [p2p] Check for nullptr before dereferencing pointer (Adam Jonas)
cb79b9dbf4 [mempool] Revert unbroadcast set to tracking just txid (Amiti Uttarwar)
Pull request description:
Addresses some outstanding review comments from #18044
- reverts unbroadcast txids to a set instead of a map (simpler, communicates intent better, takes less space, no efficiency advantages of map)
- adds safety around two touchpoints (check for nullptr before dereferencing pointer, remove an inaccurate std::move operator)
- removes some dead code
Links to comments on wtxid PR: [1](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18044#discussion_r460495254) [2](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18044#discussion_r460496023) [3](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18044#discussion_r463532611)
thanks to jnewbery & adamjonas for flagging these ! !
ACKs for top commit:
sdaftuar:
utACK a8a64acaf3
naumenkogs:
utACK a8a64acaf3
jnewbery:
utACK a8a64acaf3
Tree-SHA512: 7be669cb30cc17fb9e06b50e636ef7887c6a27354697987e4e4d38dba4b8f50e175647587430cd9bc3295bec01ce8b1e6639a50a4249d8fff9b1ca1b9ead3277
[META] This is a pure refactor commit.
Move PruneBlockFile to BlockManager because:
1. PruneOneBlockFile only acts on BlockManager
2. Eliminates the need for callers (FindFilesToPrune{,Manual}) to have a
reference to the larger ChainstateManager, just a reference to
BlockManager is enough. See following commits.
