[22.x] rc3 backports #22629

1. 
   hebasto commented at 6:59 AM on August 5, 2021: member

   Backported:

   1. #22730
   2. https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/393
   3. #22597
   4. https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/396
   5. #22643
   6. #22642
   7. #22685
   8. #22686
   9. #22654
   10. #22742
   11. https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/406
   12. #22713
2. hebasto added the label Backport on Aug 5, 2021
3. hebasto added the label GUI on Aug 5, 2021
4. hebasto cross-referenced this on Aug 5, 2021 from issue Fix regression in "Encrypt Wallet" menu item by hebasto
5. 
   hebasto commented at 7:03 AM on August 5, 2021: member

   cc @achow101 @jarolrod @meshcollider @katesalazar

6. hebasto cross-referenced this on Aug 5, 2021 from issue v22.0 testing by laanwj
7. MarcoFalke added this to the milestone 22.0 on Aug 5, 2021
8. 
   MarcoFalke commented at 3:03 PM on August 5, 2021: member

   Maybe turn this into a backport pull and also add #22597 ?

9. hebasto force-pushed on Aug 5, 2021
10. hebasto renamed this:
    [22.x] qt: Backport a fix of the regression in "Encrypt Wallet" menu item
    [22.x] rc3 backports
    on Aug 5, 2021
11. 
    hebasto commented at 3:23 PM on August 5, 2021: member

    @MarcoFalke

    Maybe turn this into a backport pull and also add #22597 ?

    Done :tiger2:

12. hebasto cross-referenced this on Aug 5, 2021 from issue consensus/params: simplify ValidDeployment check to avoid gcc warning by ajtowns
13. hebasto removed the label GUI on Aug 5, 2021
14. 
    hebasto commented at 7:07 AM on August 6, 2021: member

    Should we backport #22584 as well to make CI tests green?

15. 
    MarcoFalke commented at 7:11 AM on August 6, 2021: member

    Sounds good

16. hebasto force-pushed on Aug 6, 2021
17. hebasto cross-referenced this on Aug 6, 2021 from issue test: Add temporary sanitizer suppression implicit-signed-integer-truncation:netaddress.cpp by MarcoFalke
18. 
    hebasto commented at 7:49 AM on August 6, 2021: member

    Added #22584.

19. 
    jonatack commented at 8:18 AM on August 6, 2021: contributor

    Should we backport #22584 as well to make CI tests green?

    Note that #22584 is fixed by #22586.

20. 
    hebasto commented at 1:49 PM on August 6, 2021: member

    CI failure looks related to #22322.

21. 
    hebasto commented at 2:39 PM on August 6, 2021: member

    @MarcoFalke

    The current fuzz issue could be fixed by backporting #22517 and #22557.

    Is it worth?

22. 
    MarcoFalke commented at 3:15 PM on August 6, 2021: member

    backporting #22517 and #22557.

    Seems ok to backport them. Though, apart from the CI I don't think that anyone is running the fuzz targets on release branches.

23. hebasto force-pushed on Aug 6, 2021
24. hebasto cross-referenced this on Aug 6, 2021 from issue fuzz: Temporarily disable failing assert in banman fuzz test by MarcoFalke
25. hebasto cross-referenced this on Aug 6, 2021 from issue fuzz: silence a compiler warning about unused CBanEntry comparator by vasild
26. 
    hebasto commented at 3:55 PM on August 6, 2021: member

    Added #22517 and #22557.

27. hebasto force-pushed on Aug 6, 2021
28. hebasto cross-referenced this on Aug 6, 2021 from issue Ensure external signer option remains disabled without signers by achow101
29. 
    hebasto commented at 4:20 PM on August 6, 2021: member

    Added https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/396.

30. 
    MarcoFalke commented at 6:37 AM on August 7, 2021: member

    The current failure is #22537

31. hebasto force-pushed on Aug 7, 2021
32. 
    hebasto commented at 10:16 AM on August 7, 2021: member

    The current failure is #22537

    Added #22232, and CI is green now.

    Also, there were some concerns about backporting #22232 from @fanquake:

    I can't imagine we are going to backport #22232.

    So, if it seems controversial, ready to roll the last change back.

33. hebasto cross-referenced this on Aug 7, 2021 from issue UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: implicit-integer-sign-change consensus/tx_verify by fanquake
34. hebasto cross-referenced this on Aug 7, 2021 from issue refactor: Pass interpreter flags as uint32_t instead of signed int by MarcoFalke
35. 
    fanquake commented at 10:20 AM on August 7, 2021: member

    Added #22232, and CI is green now.

    NACK. I don't know why you've added it. We don't backport refactors.

36. hebasto force-pushed on Aug 7, 2021
37. 
    hebasto commented at 10:26 AM on August 7, 2021: member

    @fanquake

    Added #22232, and CI is green now.

    NACK. I don't know why you've added it. We don't backport refactors.

    Reverted back.

    But I cannot consider #22232 as a pure refactor, because it improves code quality.

38. 
    hebasto commented at 10:30 AM on August 7, 2021: member

    @fanquake

    How about #22597, #22584, #22517, #22557?

39. hebasto force-pushed on Aug 9, 2021
40. 
    hebasto commented at 8:13 AM on August 9, 2021: member

    Added #22643.

41. hebasto cross-referenced this on Aug 9, 2021 from issue guix-verify: Non-zero exit code when anything fails by dongcarl
42. hebasto force-pushed on Aug 9, 2021
43. 
    hebasto commented at 10:18 AM on August 9, 2021: member

    Added #22642.

44. hebasto cross-referenced this on Aug 9, 2021 from issue release: Release with separate SHA256SUMS and sig files by dongcarl
45. 
    fanquake commented at 2:37 AM on August 11, 2021: member

    How about #22597, #22584, #22517, #22557?

    I think we need to decide whether running the fuzzer CI in any branch other than master is something we want to be doing / maintaining. This seems pretty unsustainable unless we at least make changes in regards to the fuzz inputs being used by the different branches. I'm pretty sure Marco has mentioned this before.

    Having to backport something like #22517, which is just meant to be a temporary measure to disable a fuzzer in master, and as a result also backporting #22557, which only silences a warning, is messy. Same with #22584. Ideally, in either case, we'd just be backporting an actual bug fix, if anything.

46. 
    hebasto commented at 2:05 PM on August 17, 2021: member

    I think we need to decide whether running the fuzzer CI in any branch other than master is something we want to be doing / maintaining. This seems pretty unsustainable unless we at least make changes in regards to the fuzz inputs being used by the different branches. I'm pretty sure Marco has mentioned this before.

    Right. Using the same qa-assets for any branch other than master one seems pointless. Considering this, my vote is to skip the fuzzer CI in such cases.

47. hebasto cross-referenced this on Aug 17, 2021 from issue ci: Run fuzzer task for the master branch only by hebasto
48. 
    hebasto commented at 6:13 PM on August 17, 2021: member

    I think we need to decide whether running the fuzzer CI in any branch other than master is something we want to be doing / maintaining. This seems pretty unsustainable unless we at least make changes in regards to the fuzz inputs being used by the different branches. I'm pretty sure Marco has mentioned this before.

    Addressed in #22730.

49. 
    achow101 commented at 8:18 PM on August 18, 2021: member

    Can #22685 and #22686 be added to this?

50. hebasto force-pushed on Aug 19, 2021
51. 
    hebasto commented at 7:50 AM on August 19, 2021: member

    Can #22685 and #22686 be added to this?

    Done.

52. hebasto cross-referenced this on Aug 19, 2021 from issue clientversion: No suffix #if CLIENT_VERSION_IS_RELEASE by dongcarl
53. hebasto cross-referenced this on Aug 19, 2021 from issue wallet: Use GetSelectionAmount in ApproximateBestSubset by achow101
54. 
    jonatack commented at 10:01 AM on August 19, 2021: contributor

    I would submit #22651 and #22648 for consideration. 22.0 with the introduction of a second hidden network via I2P support is when they will help the most.

55. 
    Rspigler commented at 10:47 PM on August 19, 2021: contributor

    I agree with @jonatack for 22651 and 22648, if they can get enough ACK's

56. hebasto force-pushed on Aug 20, 2021
57. 
    hebasto commented at 7:14 AM on August 20, 2021: member

    Added #22654.

58. hebasto cross-referenced this on Aug 20, 2021 from issue guix: Don't include directory name in SHA256SUMS by achow101
59. hebasto force-pushed on Aug 20, 2021
60. fanquake referenced this in commit ff1e633897 on Aug 20, 2021
61. 
    hebasto commented at 7:17 AM on August 20, 2021: member

    Added #22742.

62. hebasto cross-referenced this on Aug 20, 2021 from issue test: Use proper target in do_fund_send by S3RK
63. 
    fanquake commented at 7:19 AM on August 20, 2021: member

    Lets add #22730, and remove #22584, #22517 and #22557.

64. ci: Run fuzzer task for the master branch only

    Github-Pull: bitcoin/bitcoin#22730
    Rebased-From: 5a9e255e5a324e7aa0b63a9634aa3cfda9a300bd

    e9d30fbb3a
65. consensus/params: simplify ValidDeployment check to avoid gcc warning

    Github-Pull: bitcoin/bitcoin#22597
    Rebased-From: 059171009b0138555f311cedc2553015ff618323

    57fce067a3
66. qt: Fix regression in "Encrypt Wallet" menu item

    Adding a new item to the m_wallet_selector must follow the establishment
    of signal-slot connections.
    
    Github-Pull: bitcoin-core/gui#393
    Rebased-From: d54d94959869b0c363939163b99ba0475751dcb6

    e9b4487684
67. gui: ensure external signer option remains disabled without signers

    When no external signers are available, the option to enable external
    signers should always be disabled. However the encrypt wallet checkbox
    can erroneously re-enable the external signer checkbox. To avoid this,
    CreateWalletDialog now stores whether signers were available during
    setSigners so that future calls to external_signer_checkbox->setEnabled
    can account for whether signers are available.
    
    Github-Pull: bitcoin-core/gui#396
    Rebased-From: a9b9ca82daefc77ee3c884d3f250460d7cf734a5

    6a611d2e3c
68. guix-verify: Non-zero exit code when anything fails

    Previously, if verification fails, the correct message will be printed,
    but the exit code would still be 0.
    
    Github-Pull: bitcoin/bitcoin#22643
    Rebased-From: d451b60d22576dff7a2c8d6a8b5880d9d69e397c

    cb491bd5a7
69. release: Release with separate SHA256SUMS and sig files

    This allows us to remove the rfc4880 EOL hacks and release with a
    SHA256SUMS.asc file that's a combination of all signer signatures.
    
    Github-Pull: bitcoin/bitcoin#22642
    Rebased-From: 90b3e482e911fde73133a157c3b354471682275a

    ce77b45a1f
70. wallet: Use GetSelectionAmount for target value calculations

    For target value calculations, GetSelectionAmount should be used, not
    m_effective_value or m_value.
    
    Specifically, ApproximateBestSubset mistakenly uses m_value when
    calculating whether the target value has been met. This has been changed
    to use GetSelectionAmount.
    
    Github-Pull: bitcoin/bitcoin#22686
    Rebased-From: 2de222c40198d3d528668d78cc52e2ce3fa96765

    ffc81e2048
71. wallet: Assert that enough was selected to cover the fees

    When the fee is not subtracted from the outputs, the amount that has
    been reserved for the fee (change_and_fee - change_amount) must be
    enough to cover the fee that is needed. It would be a bug to not do so,
    so use an assert to make this obvious if such a situation were to occur.
    
    Github-Pull: bitcoin/bitcoin#22686
    Rebased-From: d9262324e80da32725e21d4e0fbfee56f25490b1

    e86b023606
72. test: Test for ApproximateBestSubset edge case with too little fees

    ApproximateBestSubset had an edge case (due to not using
    GetSelectionAmount) where it was possible for it to return success but
    fail to select enough to cover transaction fees. A test is added that
    could trigger this failure prior to the fix being implemented.
    
    Github-Pull: bitcoin/bitcoin#22686
    Rebased-From: 92885c4f69a5e6fc4989677d6e5be8a666fbff0d

    dfaffbeb63
73. clientversion: No suffix #if CLIENT_VERSION_IS_RELEASE

    Previously, building from a release source tarball would result in a
    version string like v22.0.0-<commithash>, but we expect just v22.0.0.
    This commit solves this problem.
    
    Also use PACKAGE_VERSION instead of reconstructing it.
    
    Github-Pull: bitcoin/bitcoin#22685
    Rebased-From: 5100deee5822795d385570a380d3c117d05d851d

    63fec7e295
74. test: fix bug in 22686

    Github-Pull: bitcoin/bitcoin#22742
    Rebased-From: 8dcbbbea6486e9ab7d5e7397b82585141f9910bf

    88fb7e37ad
75. guix: Don't include directory name in SHA256SUMS

    The SHA256SUMS file can be used in a sha256sum -c command to verify
    downloaded binaries. However users are likely to download just a single
    file and not place this file in the correct directory relative to the
    SHA256SUMS file for the simple verification command to work. By not
    including the directory name in the SHA256SUMS file, it will be easier
    for users to verify downloaded binaries.
    
    Co-authored-by: Carl Dong <contact@carldong.me>
    
    Github-Pull: bitcoin/bitcoin#22654
    Rebased-From: fb17c99e35e72f3b21ec3b5473e84c21dc964776

    27d43e5bd4
76. doc: Mention the flat directory structure for uploads

    The uploaded binaries need to match the same flat directory structure of
    the SHA256SUMS file in order for torrent downloaders to be able to
    verify the download without moving files. Mention this in the release
    process doc.
    
    Github-Pull: bitcoin/bitcoin#22654
    Rebased-From: 132cae44f2d031bdaa1e459b92ec89ad585dfc9f

    068985c02e
77. hebasto force-pushed on Aug 20, 2021
78. 
    hebasto commented at 7:37 AM on August 20, 2021: member

    Lets add #22730, and remove #22584, #22517 and #22557.

    Done.

79. 
    fanquake commented at 7:51 AM on August 20, 2021: member

    Done.

    PR description needs updating.

80. 
    hebasto commented at 7:56 AM on August 20, 2021: member

    Done.

    PR description needs updating.

    Updated.

81. sidhujag referenced this in commit a34da59b05 on Aug 20, 2021
82. qt: Handle new added plurals in bitcoin_en.ts

    This step was missed. See translation_process.md
    
    Github-Pull: bitcoin-core/gui#406
    Rebased-From: 2b3d8f3dde383a53f29b7e7ee53ea364d4ef8938

    cb34a0aafe
83. 
    hebasto commented at 7:44 PM on August 23, 2021: member

    Added https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/406.

84. hebasto cross-referenced this on Aug 23, 2021 from issue Handle new added plurals in bitcoin_en.ts by hebasto
85. 
    fanquake commented at 8:22 AM on August 26, 2021: member

    Lets add #22713, then this is just about ready to merge.

86. 
    jonatack commented at 8:26 AM on August 26, 2021: contributor

    I agree with @jonatack for 22651 and 22648, if they can get enough ACK's

    They're RFM IMO.

87. 
    jonatack commented at 8:26 AM on August 26, 2021: contributor

    I would submit #22651 and #22648 for consideration. 22.0 with the introduction of a second hidden network via I2P support is when they will help the most.

    👆

88. Fix build with Boost 1.77.0

    BOOST_FILESYSTEM_C_STR changed to accept the path as an argument
    
    Github-Pull: bitcoin/bitcoin#22713
    Rebased-From: acb7aad27ec8a184808aa7905887e3b2c5d54e9c

    32e1424f84
89. 
    hebasto commented at 11:50 AM on August 26, 2021: member

    Lets add #22713, then this is just about ready to merge.

    Done.

90. hebasto cross-referenced this on Aug 26, 2021 from issue Fix build with Boost 1.77.0 by sizeofvoid
91. 
    laanwj commented at 12:05 PM on August 26, 2021: member

    Code list-of-backported-PRs review ACK 32e1424f84a30194dc5baa7108cf7d958ea0afcd

92. laanwj merged this on Aug 26, 2021
93. laanwj closed this on Aug 26, 2021

    ---

94. hebasto deleted the branch on Aug 26, 2021
95. bitcoin locked this on Aug 26, 2022

Contributors

hebastoMarcoFalkejonatackfanquakeachow101Rspiglerlaanwj

Milestone
22.0