-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 37.7k
[25.x] Backports #28768
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
[25.x] Backports #28768
Conversation
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers. Code CoverageFor detailed information about the code coverage, see the test coverage report. ReviewsSee the guideline for information on the review process.
If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update. |
84d9504
to
05cb867
Compare
b2a78a0
to
560eb22
Compare
This commits fixes a crash bug that can be caused with the following steps: - change to the "Transactions" view - right-click on an arbitrary transaction -> "Show transaction details" - close the transaction detail window again - select "Settings" -> "Mask values" The problem is that the list of opened dialogs, tracked in the member variable `m_opened_dialogs`, is only ever appended with newly opened transaction detail dialog pointers, but never removed. This leads to dangling pointers in the list, and if the "Mask values" menu item is selected, a crash is caused in the course of trying to close the opened transaction detail dialogs (see `closeOpenedDialogs()` method). Fix this by removing the pointer from the list if the corresponding widget is destroyed. Github-Pull: bitcoin-core/gui#774 Rebased-From: e26e665
560eb22
to
c58de5a
Compare
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
c58de5a
to
115e31b
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
#29200 would be relevant. |
115e31b
to
53bbda5
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ACK 53bbda5
Collecting backports for the 25.x branch. Currently: