-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 37.7k
[22.x] rc3 backports #22629
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
[22.x] rc3 backports #22629
Conversation
Maybe turn this into a backport pull and also add #22597 ? |
98369d8
to
f20bbdc
Compare
Done 🐅 |
Should we backport #22584 as well to make CI tests green? |
Sounds good |
f20bbdc
to
c7a0030
Compare
Added #22584. |
CI failure looks related to #22322. |
c7a0030
to
a2ac4f0
Compare
a2ac4f0
to
2d932df
Compare
Added bitcoin-core/gui#396. |
The current failure is #22537 |
2d932df
to
b531c3a
Compare
Github-Pull: bitcoin#22597 Rebased-From: 0591710
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: d54d949
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: a9b9ca8
Previously, if verification fails, the correct message will be printed, but the exit code would still be 0. Github-Pull: bitcoin#22643 Rebased-From: d451b60
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#22642 Rebased-From: 90b3e48
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#22686 Rebased-From: 2de222c
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#22686 Rebased-From: d926232
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#22686 Rebased-From: 92885c4
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#22685 Rebased-From: 5100dee
Github-Pull: bitcoin#22742 Rebased-From: 8dcbbbe
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#22654 Rebased-From: fb17c99
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#22654 Rebased-From: 132cae4
e34d014
to
068985c
Compare
PR description needs updating. |
Updated. |
5a9e255 ci: Run fuzzer task for the master branch only (Hennadii Stepanov) Pull request description: bitcoin#22629 (comment): > 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. This PR makes CI ignore fuzz tests by forcing `RUN_FUZZ_TESTS=false` for all cases when it is not the master branch or a PR based on it. See bitcoin#22731 as a demo for the 22.x branch. ACKs for top commit: MarcoFalke: cr ACK 5a9e255 no opinion on the concept, also didn't test fanquake: ACK 5a9e255 - didn't test other than to look at bitcoin#22731. Tree-SHA512: 48f8f02f1814d4f15293a8804b76d544a08784ea7acd930b5c6d4608564d30aa5a608b1a511386ffda6975feec700c1bbeb86a30a75a7e48a1c5b167a227dbdd
This step was missed. See translation_process.md Github-Pull: bitcoin-core/gui#406 Rebased-From: 2b3d8f3
Added bitcoin-core/gui#406. |
Lets add #22713, then this is just about ready to merge. |
They're RFM IMO. |
BOOST_FILESYSTEM_C_STR changed to accept the path as an argument Github-Pull: bitcoin#22713 Rebased-From: acb7aad
Done. |
Code list-of-backported-PRs review ACK 32e1424 |
Backported: