refactor: model interface after MnNetInfo and support switching impls, add new ProTx version, introduce DEPLOYMENT_EXTADDR params
#6665
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
kwvg
changed the title
MnNetInfo and support switching impls, add new ProTx version, introduce DEPLOYMENT_EXTADDR paramsMnNetInfo and support switching impls, add new ProTx version, introduce DEPLOYMENT_EXTADDR params
Draft
5 tasks
knst
reviewed
May 12, 2025
| return strprintf("internal error"); // This shouldn't be possible | ||
| } | ||
| } else { | ||
| return strprintf("invalid address"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
at this moment addresses should be fully validated, is it possible situation to get here invalid address?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It should be unlikely but I'm not comfortable removing the check (extended comment here)
Open
5 tasks
This was referenced May 12, 2025
PastaPastaPasta
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 15, 2025
… featureset 98749a7 feat: define BIP 9 fork `DEPLOYMENT_V23` for new version featureset (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh) Pull request description: ## Motivation Should handle the deployment needs for [dash#6662](#6662) and [dash#6665](#6665) as they're expected to be shipped in the same major version. ## Breaking Changes None expected. ## Checklist - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas **(note: N/A)** - [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests - [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation **(note: N/A)** - [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_ ACKs for top commit: UdjinM6: utACK 98749a7 PastaPastaPasta: utACK 98749a7 Tree-SHA512: b61302a0bcf236f06661a4a53f1d7b3ab0f65659c1c9ab2fcb782457a25eb1e6bdc942647dca6a4e22686e0c7cc83405e099e1fa790cf007d2bee3eedc456d5f
Also, ProRegTx allows an empty netInfo, ProUpServTx does not, so we should check that ProUpServTx::netInfo isn't empty.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Additional Information
Depends on feat: define BIP 9 fork
DEPLOYMENT_V23for new version featureset #6669Depends on feat: introduce type-flexible
NetInfoEntryto allow non-CServiceentries, use inMnNetInfo#6629Dependency for feat: introduce basic extended addresses implementation, stop using
platform{HTTP,P2P}Port#6666Breaking Changes
None expected.
Checklist