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

[26.x] Backports #29011

Merged
merged 18 commits into from
Jan 9, 2024
Merged

[26.x] Backports #29011

merged 18 commits into from
Jan 9, 2024

Conversation

@fanquake fanquake added this to the 26.1 milestone Dec 6, 2023
@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

DrahtBot commented Dec 6, 2023

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Code Coverage

For detailed information about the code coverage, see the test coverage report.

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

Type Reviewers
ACK TheCharlatan, glozow
Stale ACK willcl-ark

If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.

@fanquake fanquake marked this pull request as ready for review December 8, 2023 10:22
@willcl-ark
Copy link
Member

ACK 188e023

Checked diffs between Rebased-from commit hash and these commits themselves.

@fanquake
Copy link
Member Author

Note that any tidy job failure here is currently related to #28992 (comment) (and should be fixed in future).

@luke-jr
Copy link
Member

luke-jr commented Dec 17, 2023

7e90b59 has a typo in the commit message

MarcoFalke and others added 4 commits January 4, 2024 16:21
The crash would happen when querying a mempool transaction with verbosity=2, while pruning.

Github-Pull: bitcoin#29003
Rebased-From: 494a926
This fails on master without the previous commit.

Github-Pull: bitcoin#29003
Rebased-From: 9075a44
murchandamus and others added 12 commits January 4, 2024 16:21
Co-authored-by: furszy <matiasfurszyfer@protonmail.com>

Github-Pull: bitcoin#28994
Rebased-From: 5cea25b
Useful for understanding what is going on internally
when the software is running. Debug issues, and provide
more accurate feedback to users.

Github-Pull: bitcoin#28994
Rebased-From: 0c57557
Verify the transaction creation process does not produce
a BnB solution when SFFO is enabled.
This is currently problematic because it could require a
change output. And BnB is specialized on changeless solutions.

Co-authored-by: Andrew Chow <achow101@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Murch <murch@murch.one>

Github-Pull: bitcoin#28994
Rebased-From: 05e5ff1
In the following-up commit, the wallet birth time will also
be modified by the transactions scanning process. When a tx
older than all descriptor's timestamp is detected.

Github-Pull: bitcoin#28920
Rebased-From: b4306e3
As the user could have imported a descriptor with
a newer timestamp (by blindly setting 'timestamp=now'),
the wallet needs to update the birth time when it detects
a transaction older than the oldest descriptor timestamp.

Github-Pull: bitcoin#28920
Rebased-From: 75fbf44
To avoid scanning blocks, as assumed by a wallet with no
generated keys or imported scripts, the default value for
the birth time needs to be set to the maximum int64_t value.

Once the first key is generated or the first script is imported,
the legacy SPKM will update the birth time automatically.

Github-Pull: bitcoin#28920
Rebased-From: 6f49737
Verifying the wallet updates the birth time accordingly when it
detects a transaction with a time older than the oldest descriptor
timestamp.
This could happen when the user blindly imports a descriptor with
'timestamp=now'.

Github-Pull: bitcoin#28920
Rebased-From: 83c6644
And add coverage for it

Github-Pull: bitcoin#28920
Rebased-From: 1ce45ba
Homebrew attempts to check for outdated dependents or those with broken
linkage. Such behavior might lead to failures when Homebrew updates them
on old macOS images.

This change prevents such behavior.

Github-Pull: bitcoin#29080
Rebased-From: 43c3246
Copy link
Contributor

@TheCharlatan TheCharlatan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ACK 7b79e54

Copy link
Member

@glozow glozow left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ACK 7b79e54, matches mine

@jonatack
Copy link
Contributor

jonatack commented Jan 9, 2024

Suggest backporting #29200 that resolves #29197.

@glozow
Copy link
Member

glozow commented Jan 9, 2024

I'm planning to merge this now and open another batch of backports

@glozow glozow merged commit 04edf9f into bitcoin:26.x Jan 9, 2024
14 of 16 checks passed
@fanquake fanquake deleted the 26_1_backports branch January 9, 2024 15:41
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet