backport: Merge bitcoin#24041, 20591 #6259
Draft
+273
−61
Conversation
This file contains 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
vijaydasmp
changed the title
vijaydasmp
force-pushed
the
bp23_2024_09_04
branch
from
cd38ea9 to
4155253
Compare
vijaydasmp
changed the title
vijaydasmp
force-pushed
the
bp23_2024_09_04
branch
4 times, most recently
from
b9f947a to
ebe61aa
Compare
vijaydasmp
changed the title
|
This pull request has conflicts, please rebase. |
vijaydasmp
force-pushed
the
bp23_2024_09_04
branch
from
710ce89 to
42d9210
Compare
|
This pull request has conflicts, please rebase. |
vijaydasmp
changed the title
vijaydasmp
changed the title
vijaydasmp
force-pushed
the
bp23_2024_09_04
branch
from
64caa39 to
6fce065
Compare
vijaydasmp
changed the title
vijaydasmp
force-pushed
the
bp23_2024_09_04
branch
3 times, most recently
from
7f4b4f4 to
2856dca
Compare
|
Hi @UdjinM6 , This is stuck at ci/gitlab/gitlab.com Expected — Waiting for status to be reported |
Yes, this happens... try rebasing and force-pushing |
|
This pull request has conflicts, please rebase. |
vijaydasmp
force-pushed
the
bp23_2024_09_04
branch
from
2856dca to
b4685bc
Compare
vijaydasmp
changed the title
b5c9bb5 util: Restore GetIntArg saturating behavior (James O'Beirne) Pull request description: The new locale-independent atoi64 method introduced in bitcoin#20452 parses large integer values higher than maximum representable value as 0 instead of the maximum value, which breaks backwards compatibility. This commit restores compatibility and adds test coverage for this case in terms of the related GetIntArg and strtoll functions. Specifically, command line or bitcoin.conf integer values greater than `9223372036854775807` (`2**63-1`) used to be parsed as `9223372036854775807` before bitcoin#20452. Then bitcoin#20452 caused them to be parsed as `0`. And after this PR they will be parsed as `9223372036854775807` again. This change is a stripped-down alternative version of bitcoin#23841 by jamesob ACKs for top commit: jamesob: Github ACK bitcoin@b5c9bb5 vincenzopalazzo: ACK bitcoin@b5c9bb5 MarcoFalke: review ACK b5c9bb5 🌘 Tree-SHA512: 4e8abdbabf3cf4713cf5a7c5169539159f359ab4109a4e7e644cc2e9b2b0c3c532fad9f6b772daf015e1c5340ce59280cd9a41f2730afda6099cbf636b7d23ae
…ring rescanning process. 240ea29 doc: update doxygen documention of ComputeTimeSmart() and AddToWalletIfInvolvingMe() regarding rescanning_old_block parameter (BitcoinTsunami) d6eb39a test: add functional test to check transaction time determination during block rescanning (BitcoinTsunami) 07b44f1 wallet: fix ComputeTimeSmart algorithm to use blocktime during old block rescanning (BitcoinTsunami) Pull request description: The function ComputeTimeSmart in wallet.cpp assume that transaction are discovered in the right order. Moreover the 'smarttime' determination algorithm is coded with realtime scenario in mind and not rescanning of old block. The functional test demonstrate that if the user import a wallet, then rescan only recent history, and then rescan the entire history, the older transaction discovered would have an incorrect time determination. In the context of rescanning old block, the only time value that as a meaning is the blocktime. That's why I've fixed the problem with a simple separation between rescanning of old block and realtime time determination. The fix is written to have no impact on every realtime scenario and only impact the behaviour during a rescanning process. This PR Fixes bitcoin#20181. To be fair, I don't think that this bug could be triggered with the wallet GUI, because it always proceed with a proper rescan. But RPC API provide the possibility to trigger it. I've discovered it, because Specter desktop v0.10.0 was impacted. (cryptoadvance/specter-desktop#680). ACKs for top commit: jonatack: ACK 240ea29 per `git diff b92d552 240ea29`, re-verified rebase to latest master + debug build clean + new test passes on the branch and fails on master, only change since my review a few hours ago is incorporation of latest review suggestions meshcollider: re-utACK 240ea29 Tree-SHA512: 514b02e41d011ddfa325f5e8080b93800e1ea4ed5853fa420670a6ac700e8b463000dbea65f8ced8565cfb950c7f51b69154034dcb111e67aca3b964a0061494
vijaydasmp
force-pushed
the
bp23_2024_09_04
branch
from
b4685bc to
73638d6
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
backporting bitcoin