Skip to content

Conversation

@hebasto
Copy link
Member Author

hebasto commented Aug 5, 2021

@hebasto hebasto mentioned this pull request Aug 5, 2021
@maflcko maflcko added this to the 22.0 milestone Aug 5, 2021
@maflcko
Copy link
Member

maflcko commented Aug 5, 2021

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

@hebasto hebasto force-pushed the 210805-22.0-backport branch from 98369d8 to f20bbdc Compare August 5, 2021 15:20
@hebasto hebasto changed the title [22.x] qt: Backport a fix of the regression in "Encrypt Wallet" menu item [22.x] rc3 backports Aug 5, 2021
@hebasto
Copy link
Member Author

hebasto commented Aug 5, 2021

@MarcoFalke

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

Done 🐅

@hebasto
Copy link
Member Author

hebasto commented Aug 6, 2021

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

@maflcko
Copy link
Member

maflcko commented Aug 6, 2021

Sounds good

@hebasto
Copy link
Member Author

hebasto commented Aug 6, 2021

Added #22584.

@jonatack
Copy link
Member

jonatack commented Aug 6, 2021

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

Note that #22584 is fixed by #22586.

@hebasto
Copy link
Member Author

hebasto commented Aug 6, 2021

CI failure looks related to #22322.

@hebasto
Copy link
Member Author

hebasto commented Aug 6, 2021

@MarcoFalke

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

Is it worth?

@maflcko
Copy link
Member

maflcko commented Aug 6, 2021

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.

@hebasto
Copy link
Member Author

hebasto commented Aug 6, 2021

Added #22517 and #22557.

@hebasto
Copy link
Member Author

hebasto commented Aug 6, 2021

Added bitcoin-core/gui#396.

@maflcko
Copy link
Member

maflcko commented Aug 7, 2021

The current failure is #22537

@hebasto hebasto force-pushed the 210805-22.0-backport branch from 2d932df to b531c3a Compare August 7, 2021 06:49
ajtowns and others added 12 commits August 20, 2021 10:36
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
@hebasto hebasto force-pushed the 210805-22.0-backport branch from e34d014 to 068985c Compare August 20, 2021 07:37
@hebasto
Copy link
Member Author

hebasto commented Aug 20, 2021

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

Done.

@fanquake
Copy link
Member

Done.

PR description needs updating.

@hebasto
Copy link
Member Author

hebasto commented Aug 20, 2021

Done.

PR description needs updating.

Updated.

sidhujag pushed a commit to syscoin/syscoin that referenced this pull request Aug 20, 2021
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
@hebasto
Copy link
Member Author

hebasto commented Aug 23, 2021

Added bitcoin-core/gui#406.

@fanquake
Copy link
Member

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

@jonatack
Copy link
Member

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

They're RFM IMO.

@jonatack
Copy link
Member

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.

👆

BOOST_FILESYSTEM_C_STR changed to accept the path as an argument

Github-Pull: bitcoin#22713
Rebased-From: acb7aad
@hebasto
Copy link
Member Author

hebasto commented Aug 26, 2021

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

Done.

@laanwj
Copy link
Member

laanwj commented Aug 26, 2021

Code list-of-backported-PRs review ACK 32e1424

@laanwj laanwj merged commit 4a25e39 into bitcoin:22.x Aug 26, 2021
@hebasto hebasto deleted the 210805-22.0-backport branch August 26, 2021 12:41
@bitcoin bitcoin locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 26, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.