I also moved some RPC methods that were not at the end of the file with
the other ELEMENTS RPC methods. This makes the diff on my machine look
crazy. Let's hope GitHub has more intelligent diffs..
52ef283 Improve the fedpeg test with extra double claim tests (Steven Roose)
48a82fa Make claimpegin fail in the case of a double claim (Steven Roose)
af22646 Prevent pegin double spends from entering the mempool (Steven Roose)
50c5570 Report IsValidPeginWitness error message (Steven Roose)
Pull request description:
Fixes#612 and #613.
- prevents a double claim from entering mempool
- makes `claimpegin` throw an exception when trying to double claim a pegin
- check the last commit message on all the extra cases that are tested.
Tree-SHA512: dd9602cd4bc78a3e8f7a6b566f881ede09dba54900425348c1eb528268a3e869416e3c9ca97c1a8da4d120875ef59c4e21a857256312ce77e06b7b6ae04abf92
This bug got introduced with the 0.17 rebase. In 0.14.1 the double pegin
claim check was done in the beginning of the validation logic, where the
coins view was the actual UTXO set. In 0.17, Core moved several checks
because the intermediate method CheckInputs was removed and some logic
moved to tx_verify.cpp, where we also put the pegin check. In the
mempool acceptance check, however (as opposed to the ConnectBlock
check), CheckTxInputs is called with only a partial UTXO view for
optimization reasons. This commit adds an extra pegin check in the
beginning of the mempool code where we have a full UTXO view.
Note that the former 'else' branch in RewindBlockIndex is now
dealt with more naturally inside the EraseBlockData call (by
checking whether the parent needs to be re-added as candidate
after deleting a child).
04da9f4834 [RPC] Update getrawtransaction interface (Amiti Uttarwar)
Pull request description:
- stop checking unspent UTXOs for a transaction when txindex is not enabled, as per conversation here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3220#issuecomment-377458383
- code contributed by sipa
Tree-SHA512: aa07353bccc14b81b7803992a25d076d6bc06d15ec7c1b85828dc10aea7e0498d9b49f71783e352ab8a14b0bb2010cfb7835de3dfd1bc6f2323f460449348e66
fa5e373365 validation: Add cs_main locking annotations (MarcoFalke)
fa5c346c5a doc: Add comment to cs_main and mempool::cs (MarcoFalke)
fafe941bdd test: Add missing validation locks (MarcoFalke)
fac4558462 sync: Add RecursiveMutex type alias (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Both the chain state and the transaction pool are validation specific, but access to them is protected by two locks. The two locks have the following semantics:
* Writing to the chain state or adding transactions to the transaction pool -> Take both `cs_main` and `mempool::cs`
* Reading either or removing transactions from the the transaction pool -> Take only the appropriate lock
Tree-SHA512: 6f6e612ffc391904c6434a79a4f3f8de1b928bf0a3e3434b73561037b395e2b40a70a5a4bd8472dd230e9eacc8e5d5374c904a3c509910cf3971dd7ff59a626c
e58985c916 Log progress while verifying blocks at level 4. (Daniel Kraft)
Pull request description:
When verifying blocks at startup, the progress is printed in 10% increments to logs. When `-checklevel=4`, however, the second half of the verification (connecting the blocks again) does not log the progress anymore. (It is still computed and shown in the UI, but not printed to logs.)
This change makes the behaviour consistent, by adding the missing progress logging also for level-4 checks.
Tree-SHA512: 6a4c5914726fc1a1337de0c5130b20d4edf4e2feeb0aa0449d2ce422b2d8c41e56ede94163a02044d9a28ac4dc6624b1ad611da93ce5792ff32ad9fb1f0ea1e0
cb53b825c2 scripted-diff: Replace boost::bind with std::bind (Chun Kuan Lee)
2196c51821 refactor: Use boost::scoped_connection in signal/slot, also prefer range-based loop instead of std::transform (Chun Kuan Lee)
Pull request description:
Replace boost::bind with std::bind
- In `src/rpc/server.cpp`, replace `std::transform` with simple loop.
- In `src/validation.cpp`, store the `boost::signals2::connection` object and use it to disconnect.
- In `src/validationinterface.cpp`, use 2 map to store the `boost::signals2::scoped_connection` object.
Tree-SHA512: 6653cbe00036fecfc495340618efcba6d7be0227c752b37b81a27184433330f817e8de9257774e9b35828026cb55f11ee7f17d6c388aebe22c4a3df13b5092f0
66e15e8f97 Explain GetAncestor check for m_failed_blocks in AcceptBlockHeader (Sjors Provoost)
Pull request description:
Salvaged (but slightly modified) from #12138, the comment there was really helpful to wrap my head around that part of the code.
In addition, a naive reader like yours truly will first think `IsValid(BLOCK_VALID_SCRIPTS)` means the previous block was invalid. But IIUC that's not what it means. Instead, it means the block hasn't been checked for validity at the `BLOCK_VALID_SCRIPTS` level yet. So in that case the existing text "previous block index isn't valid" is wrong.
Tree-SHA512: 442a319a83290d94697fdf51376463b70454e0f3909d4a45594ddc2e7c26cd19dc703808385a25e26d6d2dddab0aa35ca41722f2e65ee6fe57bbaf62652d3ec8
