backport: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#28831, 28966 by vijaydasmp · Pull Request #7177 · dashpay/dash

vijaydasmp · 2026-02-25T16:28:06Z

Bitcoin Backporting

github-actions · 2026-02-25T16:29:03Z

⚠️ Potential Merge Conflicts Detected

This PR has potential conflicts with the following open PRs:

backport: Merge bitcoin#29041, 29034 #7190 - backport: Merge bitcoin#29361, 29041, 29034

Please coordinate with the authors of these PRs to avoid merge conflicts.

coderabbitai · 2026-03-06T18:07:29Z

Walkthrough

This pull request makes three distinct changes across test and configuration files. The first change eliminates randomness in a test perturbation mechanism by replacing random offset selection and variable-length data writes with fixed values. The second modifies an addrman test to introduce time-based mocking, setting a specific timestamp before adding peer addresses and validating the results. The third adds a new UBSan suppression for an implicit integer sign-change in the CBlockPolicyEstimator::processBlockTx function.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description check	✅ Passed	The description 'Bitcoin Backporting' is minimally informative but is directly related to the pull request's purpose of backporting changes from bitcoin/bitcoin.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	Docstring coverage is 100.00% which is sufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.
Title check	✅ Passed	The PR title references backported commits `#28831` and `#28966`, which aligns with the changes to rpc_net.py (mocktime fix) and ubsan suppressions (CBlockPolicyEstimator), but omits `#28671` mentioned in the objectives (feature_init.py changes). The title is partially related to the main changeset.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

Create PR with unit tests

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

vijaydasmp · 2026-03-25T03:08:32Z

Hello @UdjinM6 @knst requesting review

thepastaclaw

Code Review

Clean backport of three upstream Bitcoin test-only PRs (bitcoin#28671, bitcoin#28831, bitcoin#28966). No blocking issues, no missing prerequisites. Minor observation: stored addr_time field is never asserted in the test.

Reviewed commit: eb5e2a0

thepastaclaw · 2026-05-08T13:50:06Z

✅ Review complete (commit aac5a77)

thepastaclaw

Code Review

Small, low-risk backport PR pulling three test-only Bitcoin Core changes (bitcoin#28831, bitcoin#28671, bitcoin#28966). Verified: the cherry-pick of bitcoin#28671 only includes the addpeeraddress mocktime hunk, not the second hunk that asserts on getrawaddrman, because Dash has not backported the prerequisite bitcoin#28523 (no getrawaddrman in source tree). This leaves self.addr_time set but never read — non-blocking and a faithful partial backport.

Reviewed commit: eb5e2a0

🟡 1 suggestion(s)

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

These findings are from an automated code review. Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `test/functional/rpc_net.py`:
- [SUGGESTION] lines 356-357: Partial backport of bitcoin#28671 — getrawaddrman hunk dropped (prereq bitcoin#28523 not backported)
  Upstream bitcoin#28671 contains two hunks in test/functional/rpc_net.py: (1) the addpeeraddress mocktime setup carried over here, and (2) an `assert_equal(result['time'], self.addr_time)` check inside the `getrawaddrman`-driven loop. Dash does not have the `getrawaddrman` RPC (introduced upstream by bitcoin#28523, not backported — verified via grep: zero matches in src/ and test/). Only the first hunk applies, so `self.addr_time` is assigned at line 356 but never consumed elsewhere in the file. Non-blocking; the mocktime call still pins addrman timestamps benignly. Consider either dropping the `self.` prefix (use a local), or leaving a comment so a future bitcoin#28523 backport completes the pair.

thepastaclaw · 2026-05-09T05:26:56Z

+        self.addr_time = int(time.time())
+        node.setmocktime(self.addr_time)


🟡 Suggestion: Partial backport of bitcoin#28671 — getrawaddrman hunk dropped (prereq bitcoin#28523 not backported)

Upstream bitcoin#28671 contains two hunks in test/functional/rpc_net.py: (1) the addpeeraddress mocktime setup carried over here, and (2) an assert_equal(result['time'], self.addr_time) check inside the getrawaddrman-driven loop. Dash does not have the getrawaddrman RPC (introduced upstream by bitcoin#28523, not backported — verified via grep: zero matches in src/ and test/). Only the first hunk applies, so self.addr_time is assigned at line 356 but never consumed elsewhere in the file. Non-blocking; the mocktime call still pins addrman timestamps benignly. Consider either dropping the self. prefix (use a local), or leaving a comment so a future bitcoin#28523 backport completes the pair.

_{source: ['claude-general', 'claude-backport-reviewer', 'codex-backport-reviewer']}

🤖 Fix this with AI agents

These findings are from an automated code review. Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `test/functional/rpc_net.py`: - [SUGGESTION] lines 356-357: Partial backport of bitcoin#28671 — getrawaddrman hunk dropped (prereq bitcoin#28523 not backported) Upstream bitcoin#28671 contains two hunks in test/functional/rpc_net.py: (1) the addpeeraddress mocktime setup carried over here, and (2) an `assert_equal(result['time'], self.addr_time)` check inside the `getrawaddrman`-driven loop. Dash does not have the `getrawaddrman` RPC (introduced upstream by bitcoin#28523, not backported — verified via grep: zero matches in src/ and test/). Only the first hunk applies, so `self.addr_time` is assigned at line 356 but never consumed elsewhere in the file. Non-blocking; the mocktime call still pins addrman timestamps benignly. Consider either dropping the `self.` prefix (use a local), or leaving a comment so a future bitcoin#28523 backport completes the pair.

44445ae test: Avoid intermittent failures in feature_init (MarcoFalke) Pull request description: The code not only modifies block dat files, but also leveldb files, which may be of smaller size. Such corruption may not force leveldb to abort, according to the intermittent test failures. Fix the intermittent test failures by reverting bitcoin@5ab6419 . ACKs for top commit: kevkevinpal: lgtm ACK [44445ae](bitcoin@44445ae) fjahr: ACK 44445ae theStack: ACK 44445ae Tree-SHA512: 8084e4aeb8a976c1706a1898d7854c55d0c4ec7b5a08f65f97ffc173c935f9b0e0c1caef7be1538a458e4c018f7bd1948173349ec76ca48bc4013a63f284bb0f

…BlockTx suppression fa9dc92 test: Add missing CBlockPolicyEstimator::processBlockTx suppression (MarcoFalke) Pull request description: Fixes bitcoin#28865 (comment) ``` # FUZZ=policy_estimator UBSAN_OPTIONS="suppressions=/root/fuzz_dir/scratch/fuzz_gen/code/test/sanitizer_suppressions/ubsan:print_stacktrace=1:halt_on_error=1:report_error_type=1" ./src/test/fuzz/fuzz /tmp/crash-154b42214e70781a9c1ad72d3f2693913dcf8c06 ... policy/fees.cpp:632:27: runtime error: implicit conversion from type 'unsigned int' of value 4294574080 (32-bit, unsigned) to type 'int' changed the value to -393216 (32-bit, signed) #0 0x55cbbe10daee in CBlockPolicyEstimator::processBlockTx(unsigned int, CTxMemPoolEntry const*) src/policy/fees.cpp:632:27 #1 0x55cbbe10e361 in CBlockPolicyEstimator::processBlock(unsigned int, std::vector<CTxMemPoolEntry const*, std::allocator<CTxMemPoolEntry const*>>&) src/policy/fees.cpp:680:13 #2 0x55cbbd84af48 in policy_estimator_fuzz_target(Span<unsigned char const>)::$_1::operator()() const src/test/fuzz/policy_estimator.cpp:69:40 #3 0x55cbbd84af48 in unsigned long CallOneOf<policy_estimator_fuzz_target(Span<unsigned char const>)::$_0, policy_estimator_fuzz_target(Span<unsigned char const>)::$_1, policy_estimator_fuzz_target(Span<unsigned char const>)::$_2, policy_estimator_fuzz_target(Span<unsigned char const>)::$_3>(FuzzedDataProvider&, policy_estimator_fuzz_target(Span<unsigned char const>)::$_0, policy_estimator_fuzz_target(Span<unsigned char const>)::$_1, policy_estimator_fuzz_target(Span<unsigned char const>)::$_2, policy_estimator_fuzz_target(Span<unsigned char const>)::$_3) src/./test/fuzz/util.h:43:27 #4 0x55cbbd84af48 in policy_estimator_fuzz_target(Span<unsigned char const>) src/test/fuzz/policy_estimator.cpp:38:9 #5 0x55cbbda1cc18 in std::function<void (Span<unsigned char const>)>::operator()(Span<unsigned char const>) const /usr/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/13/../../../../include/c++/13/bits/std_function.h:591:9 #6 0x55cbbda1cc18 in LLVMFuzzerTestOneInput src/test/fuzz/fuzz.cpp:178:5 #7 0x55cbbd26a944 in fuzzer::Fuzzer::ExecuteCallback(unsigned char const*, unsigned long) (/root/fuzz_dir/scratch/fuzz_gen/code/src/test/fuzz/fuzz+0x190e944) (BuildId: ffb89e0b86c093ca3bdeae6f85537737a4e3b42d) #8 0x55cbbd253916 in fuzzer::RunOneTest(fuzzer::Fuzzer*, char const*, unsigned long) (/root/fuzz_dir/scratch/fuzz_gen/code/src/test/fuzz/fuzz+0x18f7916) (BuildId: ffb89e0b86c093ca3bdeae6f85537737a4e3b42d) #9 0x55cbbd25945a in fuzzer::FuzzerDriver(int*, char***, int (*)(unsigned char const*, unsigned long)) (/root/fuzz_dir/scratch/fuzz_gen/code/src/test/fuzz/fuzz+0x18fd45a) (BuildId: ffb89e0b86c093ca3bdeae6f85537737a4e3b42d) #10 0x55cbbd284026 in main (/root/fuzz_dir/scratch/fuzz_gen/code/src/test/fuzz/fuzz+0x1928026) (BuildId: ffb89e0b86c093ca3bdeae6f85537737a4e3b42d) #11 0x7fe4aa8280cf (/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6+0x280cf) (BuildId: 96ab1a8f3b2c9a2ed37c7388615e6a726d037e89) #12 0x7fe4aa828188 in __libc_start_main (/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6+0x28188) (BuildId: 96ab1a8f3b2c9a2ed37c7388615e6a726d037e89) #13 0x55cbbd24e494 in _start (/root/fuzz_dir/scratch/fuzz_gen/code/src/test/fuzz/fuzz+0x18f2494) (BuildId: ffb89e0b86c093ca3bdeae6f85537737a4e3b42d) SUMMARY: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: implicit-integer-sign-change policy/fees.cpp:632:27 in ``` ``` # base64 /tmp/crash-154b42214e70781a9c1ad72d3f2693913dcf8c06 AQEAAAAAADkFlVwAAQEAAAAAADkFlZVcACTDSSsP3746IAZrH48khwMAAQEB/QEALQAACwAAAAAA FgAAAAAAAQAABgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACcQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD6AAAAOQWVXAABAQAA AAAAOQWVlVwAIMNJKw/fvjogBmsfjySHAwABAQH9AQAtAAALAAAAAAAAAAABAAAGAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAJxAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPr/AAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAA/wAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAA AAEBAeAIAVwBXAAA/jbSBvwBKABSKBwBYgEB2wAEkvXInHYAAAAAAAAAvgAAAAAA/9//6v8e/xIk MgAlAiUAOw== ACKs for top commit: fanquake: ACK fa9dc92 dergoegge: utACK fa9dc92 Tree-SHA512: 3898c17c928ecc2bcc8c7086359e9ae00da2197b4d8e10c7bf6d12415326c9bca3ef6e1d8d3b83172ccfa604ce7e7371415262ba705225f9ea4da8b1a7eb0306

thepastaclaw

Code Review

Incremental review of rebase eb5e2a0→aac5a772. Prior partial-backport concern in test/functional/rpc_net.py is fully resolved — the bitcoin#28671 cherry-pick was dropped entirely in the rebase, removing the orphaned addr_time/mocktime hunk. The current head contains only two clean, self-contained test-only backports (28831, 28966) with no Dash subsystem impact. Only remaining observation is a PR-metadata mismatch: title still advertises 28671 even though it is no longer included.

💬 1 nitpick(s)

1 additional finding(s) omitted (not in diff).

thepastaclaw

Code Review

Automated code review.

thepastaclaw

Code Review

Review-requested same-SHA rerun against pinned head aac5a77. The prior review's only remaining observation — that the PR title still referenced bitcoin#28671 while the code contained only bitcoin#28831 and bitcoin#28966 — is resolved: the current title backport: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#28831, 28966 accurately matches the two-commit stack (3937cf4 backporting bitcoin#28831 and aac5a77 backporting bitcoin#28966). Both backports are test-only/sanitizer-suppression changes with no missing prerequisites, upstream metadata is preserved, and all six review agents (claude/codex general, commit-history, and backport-reviewer) agree there are no actionable findings. No new issues introduced.

thepastaclaw

Code Review

Fresh review-requested same-SHA follow-up for pinned head aac5a77. The PR head, title, and two-commit stack are unchanged since the automated same-SHA rerun completed earlier today; that six-agent run (claude/codex general, dash-core-commit-history, and backport-reviewer, with verifier) found no actionable issues. Current title backport: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#28831, 28966 accurately matches the two test-only backports (3937cf4 for bitcoin#28831 and aac5a77 for bitcoin#28966); no missing prerequisites or Dash-specific regressions were identified.

vijaydasmp force-pushed the March_2026_1 branch from b4d01c9 to 8dedb0b Compare March 1, 2026 12:02

vijaydasmp changed the title ~~backport: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#28671, 28617, 28583~~ backport: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#27608, 25977, 28617, 28671, 28583 Mar 1, 2026

vijaydasmp force-pushed the March_2026_1 branch 5 times, most recently from 0042783 to 30eb354 Compare March 4, 2026 16:46

vijaydasmp changed the title ~~backport: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#27608, 25977, 28617, 28671, 28583~~ backport: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin# 25977, 28617, 28671, 28583 Mar 4, 2026

vijaydasmp changed the title ~~backport: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin# 25977, 28617, 28671, 28583~~ backport: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin# 25977, 28671, 28583 Mar 4, 2026

vijaydasmp force-pushed the March_2026_1 branch from 30eb354 to eb5e2a0 Compare March 6, 2026 17:12

vijaydasmp changed the title ~~backport: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin# 25977, 28671, 28583~~ backport: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#28671, 28831, 28966 Mar 6, 2026

vijaydasmp marked this pull request as ready for review March 6, 2026 18:02

thepastaclaw reviewed Mar 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

thepastaclaw reviewed May 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Jun 13, 2026

backport: Merge bitcoin#28755, 28865, 31225, (partial) 31718, 28966 #7364

Open

fanquake added 2 commits June 15, 2026 11:20

vijaydasmp force-pushed the March_2026_1 branch from eb5e2a0 to aac5a77 Compare June 15, 2026 05:50

thepastaclaw reviewed Jun 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

vijaydasmp changed the title ~~backport: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#28671, 28831, 28966~~ backport: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#28831, 28966 Jun 21, 2026

vijaydasmp requested a review from thepastaclaw June 21, 2026 13:39

thepastaclaw reviewed Jun 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

vijaydasmp requested a review from thepastaclaw June 21, 2026 18:19

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Jun 21, 2026

backport: Merge bitcoin#29041, 29034 #7190

Open

thepastaclaw reviewed Jun 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Jun 22, 2026

backport: Merge bitcoin#31718, 28857, 28825, 29361, 26533, 27302, 29034 #7376

Draft

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

backport: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#28831, 28966#7177

backport: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#28831, 28966#7177
vijaydasmp wants to merge 2 commits into
dashpay:developfrom
vijaydasmp:March_2026_1

vijaydasmp commented Feb 25, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Feb 25, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Mar 6, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

vijaydasmp commented Mar 25, 2026

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw left a comment

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw commented May 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw left a comment

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw May 9, 2026

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw left a comment

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw left a comment

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw left a comment

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw left a comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

		self.addr_time = int(time.time())
		node.setmocktime(self.addr_time)

Conversation

vijaydasmp commented Feb 25, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Feb 25, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

⚠️ Potential Merge Conflicts Detected

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Mar 6, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Walkthrough

Estimated code review effort

Uh oh!

vijaydasmp commented Mar 25, 2026

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Code Review

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw commented May 8, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Code Review

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw May 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Code Review

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Code Review

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Code Review

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Code Review

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

github-actions Bot commented Feb 25, 2026 •

edited

Loading

coderabbitai Bot commented Mar 6, 2026 •

edited

Loading

thepastaclaw commented May 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading