66dc662c8a Add compile time checking for all cs_KeyStore runtime locking assertions (practicalswift)
Pull request description:
Add compile time checking for all `cs_KeyStore` runtime locking assertions.
This PR is a subset of #12665. The PR was broken up to make reviewing easier.
The intention is that literally all `EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED`/`LOCKS_EXCLUDED`:s added in this PR should follow either directly or indirectly from `AssertLockHeld(…)`/`AssertLockNotHeld(…)`:s already existing in the repo.
Consider the case where function `A(…)` contains `AssertLockHeld(cs_foo)` (without
first locking `cs_foo` in `A`), and that `B(…)` calls `A(…)` (without first locking `cs_main`):
* It _directly_ follows that: `A(…)` should have an `EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED(cs_foo)` annotation.
* It _indirectly_ follows that: `B(…)` should have an `EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED(cs_foo)` annotation.
Tree-SHA512: 84ee5459e7f75f9affaa4275cb760576ab0e26da8a48b9a4a59b51a25418fe4b862ba832cb01312479a8c9b0e38ee8b6c4076bcbbd73213346d09ec2057fc9f1
d8e9a2a Remove "rpc" category from GetWarnings (Wladimir J. van der Laan)
7da3b0a rpc: Move RPC_FORBIDDEN_BY_SAFE_MODE code to reserved section (Wladimir J. van der Laan)
2ae705d Remove Safe mode (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
Rebase of #10563. Safe mode was [disabled by default and deprecated in 0.16](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-notes/release-notes-0.16.0.md#safe-mode-disabled-by-default), so probably should be removed for 0.17.
> Rationale:
>
> Safe mode is useless. It only disables some RPC commands when large work forks are detected. Nothing else is affected by safe mode. It seems that very few people would be affected by safe mode. The people who use Core as a wallet are primarily using it through the GUI, which safe mode does not effect. In the GUI, transactions will still be made as normal; only a warning is displayed.
>
> I also don't think that we should be disabling RPC commands or any functionality in general. If we do, it should be done consistently, which safe mode is not. If we want to keep the idea of a safe mode around, I think that the current system needs to go first before a new system can be implemented.
Tree-SHA512: 067938f47ca6e879fb6c3c4e21f9946fd7c5da3cde67ef436f1666798c78d049225b9111dc97064f42b3bc549d3915229fa19ad5a634588f381e34fc65d64044
Although this code is no longer ever sent back after removing safe mode,
it would be unwise to remove it from the header.
For one, it would be bad to accidentally re-use the number.
Also some API documentation / bindings are directly generated from the .h
file - this is why the "Aliases for backward compatibility" are there. We don't
want to break code that relies on this error code existing, even if it's never
generated.
So keep it around but move it to a reserved section.
7d0f80b Use anonymous namespace instead of static functions (Pieter Wuille)
b61fb71 Mention removal of bare multisig IsMine in release notes (Pieter Wuille)
9c2a8b8 Do not treat bare multisig as IsMine (Pieter Wuille)
08f3228 Optimization: only test for witness scripts at top level (Pieter Wuille)
3619735 Track difference between scriptPubKey and P2SH execution in IsMine (Pieter Wuille)
ac6ec62 Switch to a private version of SigVersion inside IsMine (Pieter Wuille)
19fc973 Do not expose SigVersion argument to IsMine (Pieter Wuille)
fb1dfbb Remove unused IsMine overload (Pieter Wuille)
952d821 Make CScript -> CScriptID conversion explicit (Pieter Wuille)
Pull request description:
Currently our wallet code will treat bare multisig outputs (meaning scriptPubKeys with multiple public keys + `OP_CHECKMULTISIG` operator in it) as ours without the user asking for it, as long as all private keys in it are in our wallet.
This is a pointless feature. As it only works when all private keys are in one place, it's useless compared to single key outputs (P2PK, P2PKH, P2WPKH, P2SH-P2WPKH), and worse in terms of space, cost, UTXO size, and ability to test (due to lack of address format for them).
Furthermore, they are problematic in that producing a list of all `scriptPubKeys` we accept is not tractable (it involves all combinations of all public keys that are ours). In further wallet changes I'd like to move to a model where all scriptPubKeys that are treated as ours are explicit, rather than defined by whatever keys we have. The current behavior of the wallet is very hard to model in such a design, so I'd like to get rid of it.
I think there are two options:
* Remove it entirely (do not ever accept bare multisig outputs as ours, unless watched)
* Only accept bare multisig outputs in situations where the P2SH version of that output would also be acceptable
This PR implements the first option. The second option was explored in #12874.
Tree-SHA512: 917ed45b3cac864cee53e27f9a3e900390c576277fbd6751b1250becea04d692b3b426fa09065a3399931013bd579c4f3dbeeb29d51d19ed0c64da75d430ad9a
abd58a2 Fix for utiltime to compile with msvc. (Aaron Clauson)
Pull request description:
This PR allows utiltime.cpp to compile with msvc after the changes introduced in #12973.
Tree-SHA512: 7233b1c23400bf19aef2fcb6168009ef58b9e7f8e49c46d8cf9d04394091f370e39496d24ca00b294c4164bcfc04514e329bf6bb05169406c34ce7cd8c382565
41ff967 list the types of scripts we should consider for a witness program (fivepiece)
4f933b3 p2wpkh, p2wsh and p2sh-nested scripts in decodescript (fivepiece)
Pull request description:
Attempts to address #12244 . `p2wsh` addresses are returned only for scripts that are neither `p2sh` nor any witness program.
Tree-SHA512: eb47f094c1a4c2ad2bcf27a8032307e43cf787d50bf739281aeb4101d97316a2f307b05118bf138298c937fa34e15f91436443a9b313f809fad2c43e94cd1831
7de1de7 Add new fee structure with all sub-fields denominated in BTC (mryandao)
Pull request description:
the denomination for `fee` is current in btc while the other such as `decendentFee` and `ancestorFee` are in satoshis.
Tree-SHA512: e428f6dca1d339f89ab73e38ce5903f5465c46b159069d9bcc3f8b1140fe6657fa49a11abe0088e9f7ba9999f64af72a349a4735bf5eaa61b8e4a185b23543f3
fad2958 [doc] build-windows: Switch to Artful, since Zesty is EOL (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
According to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases#End_of_Life, Zesty is EOL, so bump to Artful for now.
Note that Artful is going to be EOL soon as well, so I am not sure how to proceed after that.
Tree-SHA512: 8efc1ade429cf053f4c69e764175aad8790ded71f04bb9963202be171f1cfa1a3de55a207c0b19271d2f536feafa754ed71a6fafc597e3023bdf0e02fa5cd5e5
9b2704777c [doc] Include txindex changes in the release notes. (Jim Posen)
ed77dd6b30 [test] Simple unit test for TxIndex. (Jim Posen)
6d772a3d44 [rpc] Public interfaces to GetTransaction block until synced. (Jim Posen)
a03f804f2a [index] Move disk IO logic from GetTransaction to TxIndex::FindTx. (Jim Posen)
e0a3b80033 [validation] Replace tx index code in validation code with TxIndex. (Jim Posen)
8181db88f6 [init] Initialize and start TxIndex in init code. (Jim Posen)
f90c3a62f5 [index] TxIndex method to wait until caught up. (Jim Posen)
70d510d93c [index] Allow TxIndex sync thread to be interrupted. (Jim Posen)
94b4f8bbb9 [index] TxIndex initial sync thread. (Jim Posen)
34d68bf3a3 [index] Create new TxIndex class. (Jim Posen)
c88bcec93f [db] Migration for txindex data to new, separate database. (Jim Posen)
0cb8303241 [db] Create separate database for txindex. (Jim Posen)
Pull request description:
I'm re-opening #11857 as a new pull request because the last one stopped loading for people
-------------------------------
This refactors the tx index code to be in it's own class and get built concurrently with validation code. The main benefit is decoupling and moving the txindex into a separate DB. The primary motivation is to lay the groundwork for other indexers that might be desired (such as the [compact filters](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/636)). The basic idea is that the TxIndex spins up its own thread, which first syncs the txindex to the current block index, then once in sync the BlockConnected ValidationInterface hook writes new blocks.
### DB changes
At the suggestion of some other developers, the txindex has been split out into a separate database. A data migration runs at startup on any nodes with a legacy txindex. Currently the migration blocks node initialization until complete.
### Open questions
- Should the migration of txindex data from the old DB to the new DB block in init or should it happen in a background thread? The downside to backgrounding it is that `getrawtransaction` would return an error message saying the txindex is syncing while the migration is running.
### Impact
In a sample size n=1 test where I synced nodes from scratch, the average time [Index writing](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L1903) was 3.36ms in master and 1.72ms in this branch. The average time between `UpdateTip` log lines for sequential blocks between 400,000 and IBD end on mainnet was 0.297204s in master and 0.286134s in this branch. Most likely this is just variance in IBD times, but I can try with some more trials if people want.
Tree-SHA512: 451fd7d95df89dfafceaa723cdf0f7b137615b531cf5c5035cfb54e9ccc2026cec5ac85edbcf71b7f4e2f102e36e9202b8b3a667e1504a9e1a9976ab1f0079c4
bd9d67b752 Don't test against min relay fee information in mining_prioritisetransaction.py (Kristaps Kaupe)
Pull request description:
Follow-up on #13032.
As advised by @MarcoFalke.
Tree-SHA512: a690ff2e6499b0b4ee6a952c849e363738b9a5ae553266e1780fc7910a6b01e240d71b434fe87da53dc43f6e26cec23a900ec16aab64bb8f6765c26d7aa37c56
Now that the transaction index is updated asynchronously, in order to
preserve the current behavior of public interfaces, the code blocks
until the transaction index is caught up with the current state of the
blockchain.
In order to preserve getrawtransaction RPC behavior, there needs to be
a way for a thread to ensure the transaction index is in sync with the
current state of the blockchain.
The TxIndex will be responsible for building the transaction index
concurrently with the main validation thread by implementing
ValidationInterface. This does not process blocks concurrently yet.
5109fc4 [tests] [qt] Add tests for address book manipulation via EditAddressDialog (James O'Beirne)
9c01be1 [tests] [qt] Introduce qt/test/util with a generalized ConfirmMessage (James O'Beirne)
8cdcaee [qt] Display more helpful message when adding a send address has failed (James O'Beirne)
c5b2770 Add purpose arg to Wallet::getAddress (James O'Beirne)
Pull request description:
Addresses https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12796.
When a user attempts to add to the address book a sending address which is already present as a receiving address, they're presented with a confusing error indicating the address is already present in the book, despite the fact that this row is currently invisible.
This change adds a more specific error message indicating its existence as a receiving address (as discussed in the linked issue).
This change also adds some tests exercising use of the address book via QT. Adding so much test code for such a trivial change may seem weird, but it's my hope that this will make further test-writing for address book usage (and other QT features) more approachable.
Tree-SHA512: fbdd5564f7a9a2380bbe437f3378e8d4d5fd9201efff4879b72bc23f2cc1c2eecaf2b811994c25070ee052422e48e47901787c2e62cc584774a997fe6a2a327a
Addresses #12796.
When we're unable to add a sending address to the address book because it
already exists as a receiving address, display a message indicating as much.
This should help avoid confusion about an address supposedly already in the
book but which isn't currently visible in the interface.
3e53004339 test: add rpcauth-test to AC_CONFIG_LINKS to fix out-of-tree make check (Wladimir J. van der Laan)
Pull request description:
Add rpcauth-test (introduced #13056) to AC_CONFIG_LINKS, like the other directly called python scripts, to fix out-of-tree `make check`.
(forgot to test this before merging, unfortunately)
Tree-SHA512: 60306ac83ee81e0f27d5b4f0420c3bd4edfa3fd5daaa067ff0c235eb55da9f6c559203c2625fed97783b2d11d9f1bed7a359b4d9204ab4af75fd1fd24b9882a8
fa811b0 qa: Normalize executable location (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
This removes the need to override the executable locations by just reading them from the config file. Beside making the code easier to read, running individual test on Windows is now possible by default (without providing further command line arguments).
Note: Of course, it is still possible to manually specify the location through the `BITCOIND` environment variable, e.g. `bitcoin-qt`.
Tree-SHA512: bee6d22246796242d747120ca18aaab089f73067de213c9111182561985c5912228a0b0f7f9eec025ecfdb44db031f15652f30d67c489d481c995bb3232a7ac7
fa3bb183ad bench: Amend mempool_eviction test for witness txs (MarcoFalke)
962d223e5c bench: Move constructors out of mempool_eviction hot loop (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Tree-SHA512: 997a07e067623bc2c0904a21bd490d164045cf51393af260fc79882ed010636dce82c9ebe35aae8fa5db5e73c9f3ecb6232353a0939c295034f9be574f1fcff2
fac0db0 wallet: Make fee settings non-static members (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
The wallet header defined some globals (they were called "settings"), that should be class members instead.
This commit is hopefully only refactoring, apart from a multiwallet bugfix: Calling the rpc `settxfee` for one wallet, would set (and change) the fee rate for all loaded wallets. (See added test case)
Tree-SHA512: 4ab6ec2f5c714742396ded5e451ec3b1ceb771e3696492de29889d866de4365b3fbe4a2784d085c8b8bd11b1ebb8a1fec99ab2c62eee716791cfc67c0cf29e1b
cead28b [docs] Add release notes for deprecated 'account' API (John Newbery)
72c9575 [wallet] [tests] Add tests for accounts/labels APIs (John Newbery)
109e05d [wallet] [rpc] Deprecate wallet 'account' API (John Newbery)
3576ab1 [wallet] [rpc] Deprecate account RPC methods (John Newbery)
3db1ba0 [tests] Set -deprecatedrpc=accounts in tests (John Newbery)
4e671f0 [tests] Rename rpc_listtransactions.py to wallet_listtransactions.py (John Newbery)
a28b907 [wallet] [rpc] Remove duplicate entries in rpcwallet.cpp's CRPCCommand table (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
Deprecate all accounts functionality and make it only accessible by using `-deprecatedrpc=accounts`.
Accounts specific RPCs, account arguments, and account related results all require the `-deprecatedrpc=accunts` startup option now in order to see account things.
Several wallet functional tests use the accounts system. Those tests are unchanged, except to start the nodes with `-deprecatedrpc=accounts`. We can slowly migrate those tests to use the 'label' API instead of the 'account' API before accounts are fully removed.
Tree-SHA512: 89f4ae2fe6de4a1422f1817b0997ae22d63ab5a1a558362ce923a3871f3e42963405d6573c69c27f1764679cdee5b51bf52202cc407f1361bfd8066d652f3f37
8b8032e test: Add rpcauth pair that generated by rpcauth (Chun Kuan Lee)
Pull request description:
This PR adds a rpcauth pair that is randomly generated. Also checks that rpcauth.py works fine.
Resolve#12995
Tree-SHA512: d9661f40e306bcf528dc25919c874ebcdbdd21101319985dc12ce133c80fd0021cfee5e4bfe8ee7970eccc2e24c97e596263b270fe0b79f3613ae573a825ed63
3ee4be1 Make tests pass after 2020 (Bernhard M. Wiedemann)
Pull request description:
Make tests pass after 2020
and also test that 64 bit integers are properly handled
Without this patch, the failure was
```
unknown location(0): fatal error: in "rpc_tests/rpc_ban": std::runtime_error: JSON value is not an object as expected
test/rpc_tests.cpp(260): last checkpoint
```
I found this when testing reproducible builds for openSUSE Linux packages, building 15 years from now (this is the expected lifespan of today's software)
There is 1 other issue in ./src/qt/test/paymentservertests.cpp that fails to verify a cert that expires in 2022 after 10y.
```
QWARN : PaymentServerTests::paymentServerTests() PaymentRequestPlus::getMerchant: Payment request: certificate expired or not yet active: QSslCertificate("3", "01", "Ipbt+DxK8RDQd25/5ueXqw==", (), ("Payment Request Test Merchant"), QMap(), QDateTime(2012-12-10 16:37:24.000 UTC Qt::TimeSpec(UTC)), QDateTime(2022-12-08 16:37:24.000 UTC Qt::TimeSpec(UTC)))
FAIL! : PaymentServerTests::paymentServerTests() Compared values are not the same
```
Tree-SHA512: d6c49879b6abbddbecc1168ac24c2d4f4ee9949b615607b3e6ba350c415136017f32cd112708791b063a2f2dc1b12f295f4ee55a346bd2128aa6480088d8db48
09b30db Asserts that the tx version number is a signed 32-bit integer. (251)
Pull request description:
This PR attempts to resolve#11561 by addressing the feedback from @MarcoFalke; and @gmaxwell in #12430.
Commit 30e9d24 adds a functional test to `rpc_rawtransaction.py` to assert that the transaction version number in the RPC output is a signed 32-bit integer.
The functional test uses the raw transaction data from Mainnet transaction `c659729a7fea5071361c2c1a68551ca2bf77679b27086cc415adeeb03852e369`.
Tree-SHA512: d78f3120b9aa04537561ab5584769a838b25e162c5caa6e1543256fb27538aa4c708c939fb5ba93ccb3fa676c2d92ce8eb9cc78869f80ac96be64a7bec7bebd0
1accfbc Output values for "min relay fee not met" error (Kristaps Kaupe)
Pull request description:
It is already done this way for "mempool min fee not met" error.
Tree-SHA512: 829db78ecc066cf93b8e93ff1aeb4e7b98883cf45f341d5be6e6b4dff4135f3f54fa49b3a6f12eb43f676a9ba54f981143c9887f786881e584370434a9566cfd
80a5e59 [qa] Attach node index to test_node AssertionError and print messages (James O'Beirne)
Pull request description:
In the midst of fighting with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12873 it became apparent that there're a number of assertions and print statements which are emitted by test nodes but don't identify the node in question. This change makes debugging a bit easier by adding identifying information to non-logger test_node-related error messages.
Tree-SHA512: 7cc86f2c81f4b3fdba15ec9a2d21a84c4b083629e845e82288087c3affbbdc5c68e74067621856cc97fe84fbc8cb4f5ca4977a51ef381e5d74515df8eb001239
4d33039 List support for BIP173 in bips.md (Pieter Wuille)
Pull request description:
Tree-SHA512: 6e6b89692b61d94c24624f26ff90f399e4a2ad676a345c398e173a65ac7aaeaafd2c2ad852cfabad655d8f523a7734ae0e30e892289b6db8c73c1aba0070e838
