asp: the point of this PR was to completely decouple libbitcoin_server from
bitcoin_tool; it removes $(LIBBITCOIN_SERVER) from the `elements_wallet_LDADD`.
I put this back in because our additional code related to pegin claiming makes
heavy use of methods from libbitcoin_server.
If we want to morally accept this PR then we need to do a nontrivial refactoring.
d044e0ec7d refactor: Remove override for final overriders (Hennadii Stepanov)
1551cea2d5 refactor: Use override for non-final overriders (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
Two commits are split out from #16710 to make reviewing [easier](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16710#issuecomment-625760894).
From [C++ FAQ](https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines.html#c128-virtual-functions-should-specify-exactly-one-of-virtual-override-or-final):
> C.128: Virtual functions should specify exactly one of virtual, override, or final
> **Reason** Readability. Detection of mistakes. Writing explicit `virtual`, `override`, or `final` is self-documenting and enables the compiler to catch mismatch of types and/or names between base and derived classes. However, writing more than one of these three is both redundant and a potential source of errors.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK d044e0ec7d: consistent use of `override` prevents bugs + patch looks correct + Travis happy
MarcoFalke:
ACK d044e0ec7d, based on my understanding that adding `override` or `final` to a function must always be correct, unless it doesn't compile!?
vasild:
ACK d044e0ec7
Tree-SHA512: 245fd9b99b8b5cbf8694061f892cb3435f3378c97ebed9f9401ce86d21890211f2234bcc39c9f0f79a4d2806cb31bf8ce41a0f9c2acef4f3a2ac5beca6b077cf
This change is intended to make the bitcoin node and its rpc, network
and gui interfaces more responsive while the wallet is in use. Currently
because the node's cs_main mutex is always locked before the wallet's
cs_wallet mutex (to prevent deadlocks), cs_main currently stays locked
while the wallet does relatively slow things like creating and listing
transactions.
This commit only remmove chain lock tacking in wallet code, and invert
lock order from cs_main, cs_wallet to cs_wallet, cs_main.
must happen at once to avoid any deadlock. Previous commit were only
removing Chain::Lock methods to Chain interface and enforcing they
take cs_main.
Remove LockChain method from CWallet and Chain::Lock interface.
This is a step toward removing the Chain::Lock class and reducing cs_main
locking.
This change only affects behavior in the case where wallet last block processed
falls behind the chain tip, where it will treat the last block processed as the
current tip.
This is a step toward removing the Chain::Lock class and reducing cs_main
locking.
This change affects behavior in a few small ways.
- If there's no max_height specified, percentage progress is measured ending at
wallet last processed block instead of node tip
- More consistent error reporting: Early check to see if start_block is on the
active chain is removed, so start_block is always read and the triggers an
error if it's unavailable
This is a step toward removing the Chain::Lock class and reducing cs_main
locking.
This change only affects behavior in the case where wallet last block processed
falls behind the chain tip. The rescanblockchain error height error checking
will just be stricter in this case and only accept values up to the last
processed height
This is a step toward removing the Chain::Lock class and reducing cs_main
locking.
This change only affects behavior in the case where wallet last block processed
falls behind the chain tip. Previously listsinceblock might not have returned
all transactions up to the claimed "lastblock" value in this case, resulting in
race conditions and potentially missing transactions in cases where
listsinceblock was called in a loop like
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14338#issuecomment-426706574
