backport: Merge bitcoin#20613,20617,20569,20668,20686#5502
Merged
Conversation
vijaydasmp
changed the title
vijaydasmp
changed the title
vijaydasmp
changed the title
vijaydasmp
changed the title
vijaydasmp
force-pushed
the
bp22_6
branch
2 times, most recently
from
369d5b8 to
66cc4a8
Compare
vijaydasmp
changed the title
|
This pull request has conflicts, please rebase. |
vijaydasmp
force-pushed
the
bp22_6
branch
2 times, most recently
from
847e9d0 to
f1ec60b
Compare
vijaydasmp
force-pushed
the
bp22_6
branch
4 times, most recently
from
fc580f4 to
8ca55b1
Compare
vijaydasmp
changed the title
Author
|
Hello @UdjinM6 , please review |
Collaborator
|
bitcoin#20605 seems included in other PR: #5492 |
vijaydasmp
changed the title
Author
removed bitcoin#20605 from PR:#5502 |
vijaydasmp
changed the title
UdjinM6
requested changes
Jul 27, 2023
Author
|
knst
requested changes
Jul 31, 2023
Collaborator
knst
left a comment
knst
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems as fixes related to signet accidentally went with wrong commit :
Instead 'bitcoin#20668' being fixed fuzz-related backport "bitcoin#20686" got them.
otherwise LGTM
vijaydasmp
force-pushed
the
bp22_6
branch
3 times, most recently
from
bf9ea99 to
fe2a1ef
Compare
Author
Corrected the error |
PastaPastaPasta
approved these changes
Aug 8, 2023
Member
PastaPastaPasta
left a comment
PastaPastaPasta
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
utACK for merging via merge commit
…art_raises_init_error fa918dd test: Use Popen.wait instead of RPC in assert_start_raises_init_error (MarcoFalke) Pull request description: Using RPC (`wait_for_rpc_connection`) has several issue: * It polls in a loop, which might be slow * It tries to read the RPC cookie file, which might not be present, thus leading to intermittent issues Fix both by using `Popen.wait` ACKs for top commit: laanwj: Code review ACK ~~faf7b05be9c86ee61c39e5314511fe2410128a6b~~ fa918dd darosior: ACK fa918dd Tree-SHA512: 5368ad0d0ea2deb0af9582a42667c9290efe8f2705f37a236afc2c7908b04265ab342e2dd356a57156e99389f4a27ab6da9fa7bf9161fb7568240aa005e693b9
a33442f Remove m_is_manual_connection from CNodeState (Antoine Riard) Pull request description: Currently, this member is only used to exclude MANUAL peers from discouragement in MaybePunishNodeForBlock(). Manual connections are already protected in MaybeDiscourageAndDisconnect(), independently from their network processing behaviors. ACKs for top commit: MarcoFalke: cr ACK a33442f promag: Code review ACK a33442f. jnewbery: utACK a33442f amitiuttarwar: code review ACK a33442f Tree-SHA512: cfe3f3dfa131373e3299002d34ae9e22ca6e1a966831bab32fcf06ff1d08f06095b4ab020cc4d267f3ec05ae23fbdc22373382ab828b999c0db11b8c842a4f0c
…with got_loading_error fab48da test: Fix intermittent wallet_multiwallet issue with got_loading_error (MarcoFalke) fa8e15f test: pep8 wallet_multiwallet.py (MarcoFalke) Pull request description: Failing the test after 10 iterations without a loading error is problematic because it may take 11 iterations to get a loading error. Fix that by running until a loading error occurs, which should happen in almost all runs within the first 10 iterations. ACKs for top commit: ryanofsky: Code review ACK fab48da. This seems like a good workaround. I think more ideally think load and unload RPCs would not have racy status reporting (suggested previously bitcoin#19300 (review) and Tree-SHA512: 6b80b26d916276efe2a01af93bca7dbf71a3e67db9d3deb15175070719bf7d1325a1410d93e74c0316942e388faa2ba185dc9d3759c82d1c73c3c509b9997f05
…not using default ports 010eed3 doc: warn that incoming conns are unlikely when not using default ports (Adam Jonas) Pull request description: Closes dashpay#5150. This was mostly copied from dashpay#5285 by sulks, who has since quit GitHub. The issue has remained open for 6 years, but the extra explanation still seems useful. ACKs for top commit: laanwj: re-ACK 010eed3 Tree-SHA512: d240fb06bba41ad8898ced59356c10adefc09f3abb33e277f8e2c5980b40678f2d237f286b476451bb29d2b94032a7dee2ada3b2efe004ed1c2509e70b48e40f
…l.h::ConsumeNode() 23d8f34 fuzz: replace CNode code with fuzz/util.h::ConsumeNode() (Jon Atack) Pull request description: Noticed this while updating the CNode fuzzing in bitcoin#20210. - cc26fab created `test/fuzz/net.cpp` in May 2020 - 79ef832 created a CNode factory utility `test/fuzz/util.h::ConsumeNode()` in October 2020 This PR updates `fuzz/net.cpp` from the first commit to use `ConsumeNode()` from the second commit. ACKs for top commit: MarcoFalke: ACK 23d8f34 Tree-SHA512: 26f7685395b3d48fcf40dde0d479d5c2fb4e953ec9371940b19eee16bb30aee4840b081e1a918b924a9704c1bef484302ea3e8fe63819a3bba73e7eb805164f1
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.