Policy: Continue policy movements #5652
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
…let.cpp Methods moved: CWallet::IsMine() CWallet::GetDebit() CWallet::GetCredit() CWallet::GetChange() CWalletTx::IsTrusted()
…onsensus/validation.h
Decouple it from util.h [bool error(char*)] and BOOST_FOREACH
…nsensus/consensus.o
…ons in utilstrencodings.h
(and initialize minRelayTxFee in InitPolicyFromArgs())
…(CTxOut) Decouples CTxOut from CFeeRate Simplifies IsDust() interface encapsulating the access to global minRelayTxFee
…::ValidateTx(CTransaction, CValidationState)
|
Closing for now, at least until some agreement is found in #5595. |
Closed
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I had some misunderstandings about what @luke-jr and I agreed and disagreed on #5071.
That's why I created #5180. The only disagreement is how you allow users to select
Params().RequireStandard()independently of the chainparams selected (but we agree that should be possible, @petertodd does too #5521 (comment)). That little disagreement is out of scope for this PR. The two potential solutions should be easier to review, maintain and discuss after this PR has been acked.I thought he also disagreed on:
He doesn't disagree, he was just doing some things faster and left others for later in his version of policy encapsulation (https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/tree/nodepolicy2). There's a version rebased on top of this PR that satisfies 1 but not 2 in https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/tree/luke_policy2 [I'm afraid I've also introduced an error in the last 3 commits].
He thought I also disagreed on:
I don't: I was just leaving that for later.
This PR is mostly composed of code movements that I expect will be uncontroversial. 3 commits just move a single function and its associated globals if any. 2 of them are not purely moveonly because they change the function headers or move some functionality from one function to another, but are mostly code movements.
Finally, the last commit creates a CPolicy interface (abstract class) and a CStandardPolicy implementation; and it's open for method name bikesheding.
@luke-jr if you like this PR I'm closing #5595 and #5114.