fix(rpc)!: require `proTxHash` to be unspecified when not asking for `ENCRYPTED_CONTRIBUTIONS` in `quorum getdata` rpc by UdjinM6 · Pull Request #5772 · dashpay/dash

UdjinM6 · 2023-12-17T19:47:59Z

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

Because when we ask for a quorum wide data only (QUORUM_VERIFICATION_VECTOR) and not for a data about one specific MN proTxHash is not used in any way in this case and should not be provided. If it still was provided then maybe user doesn't quite understand what he is doing exactly or maybe he made a typo in dataMask.

What was done?

How Has This Been Tested?

Breaking Changes

quorum getdata RPC will no longer allow proTxHash to be specified when dataMask is set to 1.

Checklist:

I have performed a self-review of my own code
I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
I have assigned this pull request to a milestone (for repository code-owners and collaborators only)

PastaPastaPasta · 2023-12-17T20:16:39Z

Release notes + add text to "Breaking changes" section of pr?

ogabrielides

utACK

ogabrielides

re-utACK

knst · 2023-12-22T09:06:01Z

@@ -730,6 +730,9 @@ static UniValue quorum_getdata(const JSONRPCRequest& request, const LLMQContext&
        } else {
            throw JSONRPCError(RPC_INVALID_PARAMETER, "proTxHash missing");
        }
+    } else if (!request.params[4].isNull()) {
+        // Require no proTxHash otherwise
+        throw JSONRPCError(RPC_INVALID_PARAMETER, "Should not specify proTxHash");


is it easy to make functional test for this case? 🤔

ogabrielides

utACK

knst

utACK

PastaPastaPasta

will review when we branch of v21

knst

ACK f18b4e8ca911181a87392ef23b971bac44b21a14

The new test fails without changes in rpc/quorums.cpp indeed as expected

PastaPastaPasta · 2024-11-14T17:29:13Z

Anything blocking this? or should we merge it?

DashCoreAutoGuix · 2025-07-28T17:24:46Z

ℹ️ Not a Bitcoin Backport

This PR is not a Bitcoin backport - it implements Dash-specific quorum functionality that doesn't exist in Bitcoin.

Original Bitcoin commit: N/A (Dash-specific feature)
Reviewed commit hash: f18b4e8ca9-verify-1753723480

Analysis Summary:

✅ CI Status: All 33 checks passing
✅ Release Notes: Present and appropriate (doc/release-notes-5772.md)
✅ Breaking Changes: Properly documented in PR description
✅ Code Quality: Implements proper input validation for quorum RPC
✅ Tests: Includes functional test coverage

Reviewer Feedback Addressed:

Issue from @PastaPastaPasta: Release notes → ✅ Added in doc/release-notes-5772.md
Issue from @PastaPastaPasta: Breaking changes documentation → ✅ Present in PR description

This PR enhances the quorum getdata RPC by requiring proTxHash to be unspecified when requesting quorum-wide data (dataMask=1), preventing user confusion and potential mistakes.

Recommendation: This PR is ready for merge as a Dash-specific enhancement.

…PTED_CONTRIBUTIONS` in `quorum getdata` rpc

github-actions · 2025-09-23T19:05:50Z

✅ No Merge Conflicts Detected

This PR currently has no conflicts with other open PRs.

UdjinM6 added this to the 21 milestone Dec 17, 2023

UdjinM6 mentioned this pull request Dec 17, 2023

fix: A set of qdata/qwatch related fixes #5745

Merged

5 tasks

UdjinM6 changed the title ~~rpc: require proTxHash to be unspecified when not asking for ENCRYPTED_CONTRIBUTIONS in quorum getdata rpc~~ fix(rpc): require proTxHash to be unspecified when not asking for ENCRYPTED_CONTRIBUTIONS in quorum getdata rpc Dec 17, 2023

UdjinM6 changed the title ~~fix(rpc): require proTxHash to be unspecified when not asking for ENCRYPTED_CONTRIBUTIONS in quorum getdata rpc~~ fix(rpc)!: require proTxHash to be unspecified when not asking for ENCRYPTED_CONTRIBUTIONS in quorum getdata rpc Dec 17, 2023

ogabrielides previously approved these changes Dec 17, 2023

View reviewed changes

thephez added the RPC Some notable changes to RPC params/behaviour/descriptions label Dec 18, 2023

UdjinM6 dismissed ogabrielides’s stale review via 1e25768 December 18, 2023 15:39

ogabrielides previously approved these changes Dec 18, 2023

View reviewed changes

knst reviewed Dec 22, 2023

View reviewed changes

UdjinM6 dismissed ogabrielides’s stale review via c9752ea December 22, 2023 17:11

ogabrielides previously approved these changes Dec 27, 2023

View reviewed changes

knst previously approved these changes Dec 27, 2023

View reviewed changes

PastaPastaPasta requested changes Jan 9, 2024

View reviewed changes

UdjinM6 marked this pull request as draft February 13, 2024 08:29

UdjinM6 removed this from the 21 milestone Jul 26, 2024

UdjinM6 dismissed stale reviews from knst and ogabrielides via db09b6b August 8, 2024 21:34

UdjinM6 force-pushed the require_no_protx branch from c9752ea to db09b6b Compare August 8, 2024 21:34

UdjinM6 added this to the 22 milestone Aug 8, 2024

UdjinM6 force-pushed the require_no_protx branch 2 times, most recently from f635cd7 to 00a176f Compare August 13, 2024 15:18

UdjinM6 force-pushed the require_no_protx branch from 00a176f to 5770763 Compare August 21, 2024 12:51

UdjinM6 force-pushed the require_no_protx branch from 5770763 to f18b4e8 Compare September 22, 2024 09:34

UdjinM6 marked this pull request as ready for review September 22, 2024 17:17

knst previously approved these changes Sep 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

PastaPastaPasta modified the milestones: 22, 22.1 Nov 14, 2024

PastaPastaPasta self-requested a review November 14, 2024 17:29

UdjinM6 modified the milestones: 22.1, 23 Nov 17, 2024

UdjinM6 marked this pull request as draft December 11, 2024 15:07

UdjinM6 added 2 commits September 23, 2025 22:05

rpc: require proTxHash to be unspecified when not asking for `ENCRY…

ecfc325

…PTED_CONTRIBUTIONS` in `quorum getdata` rpc

doc: add partial release notes

703a783

UdjinM6 force-pushed the require_no_protx branch from f18b4e8 to 50633c0 Compare September 23, 2025 19:05

test: expect Should not specify proTxHash error when flag is 0x01

1db548f

UdjinM6 dismissed knst’s stale review via 1db548f September 23, 2025 20:18

UdjinM6 force-pushed the require_no_protx branch from 50633c0 to 1db548f Compare September 23, 2025 20:18

UdjinM6 removed this from the 23 milestone Oct 27, 2025

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

fix(rpc)!: require `proTxHash` to be unspecified when not asking for `ENCRYPTED_CONTRIBUTIONS` in `quorum getdata` rpc#5772

fix(rpc)!: require `proTxHash` to be unspecified when not asking for `ENCRYPTED_CONTRIBUTIONS` in `quorum getdata` rpc#5772
UdjinM6 wants to merge 3 commits into
dashpay:developfrom
UdjinM6:require_no_protx

UdjinM6 commented Dec 17, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

PastaPastaPasta commented Dec 17, 2023

Uh oh!

ogabrielides left a comment

Uh oh!

ogabrielides left a comment

Uh oh!

knst Dec 22, 2023

Uh oh!

ogabrielides left a comment

Uh oh!

knst left a comment

Uh oh!

PastaPastaPasta left a comment

Uh oh!

knst left a comment •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

PastaPastaPasta commented Nov 14, 2024

Uh oh!

DashCoreAutoGuix commented Jul 28, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

Conversation

UdjinM6 commented Dec 17, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

What was done?

How Has This Been Tested?

Breaking Changes

Checklist:

Uh oh!

PastaPastaPasta commented Dec 17, 2023

Uh oh!

ogabrielides left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ogabrielides left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

knst Dec 22, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ogabrielides left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

knst left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

PastaPastaPasta left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

knst left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

PastaPastaPasta commented Nov 14, 2024

Uh oh!

DashCoreAutoGuix commented Jul 28, 2025

ℹ️ Not a Bitcoin Backport

Analysis Summary:

Reviewer Feedback Addressed:

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 23, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

✅ No Merge Conflicts Detected

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

UdjinM6 commented Dec 17, 2023 •

edited

Loading

knst left a comment •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Sep 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading