-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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
Backport remaining "candidates" from develop to v0.15.x #3301
Conversation
* Check MNs up to 24 blocks deep when verifying `dstx` * Handle DSTX-es more like regular txes and not like "other" invs * Try asking for a DSTX too when trying to find missing tx parents * Check DSTX-es when chainlock arrives `HasChainLock` was always `false` in `IsExpired` because tip is updated before the corresponding chainlock is received * Apply `Handle DSTX-es more like regular txes` idea to `AlreadyHave()` * Alternative handling of DSTX+recentRejects Co-authored-by: Alexander Block <[email protected]>
Sometimes the node we ask for mnlistdiff is so fast to reply that we receive the message back before we reset `last_mnlistdiff`. To fix this we should reset it before sending the message, not after.
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.
utACK
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.
utACK
@UdjinM6 you want to reuse this PR to bring in the new backport candidates as well? |
@codablock Yep, will add them once they are merged. |
100%: es, ko 97%+: ro, zh_TW
…ple local addresses are known (dashpay#3304) * Fix CActiveMasternodeManager::GetLocalAddress to prefer IPv4 if multiple local addresses are known * Make sure LookupHost succeeded
335db80
to
5500014
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.
re-utACK
Oooops, I just force-pushed it to trigger Travis build again 🙈 (didn't see that it was approved already) |
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.
utACK
FYI: Removed |
And update release notes once again.