fix!: use the same version along all protx special transactions#7302
fix!: use the same version along all protx special transactions#7302knst wants to merge 16 commits into
Conversation
|
✅ Review complete (commit 2d62450) |
✅ No Merge Conflicts DetectedThis PR currently has no conflicts with other open PRs. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: ed4d9c63ea
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
| ptx.nVersion = DeploymentToProtxVersion(WITH_LOCK(::cs_main, return chainman.ActiveChain().Tip()), chainman, | ||
| /*is_basic_override=*/!use_legacy); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When DEPLOYMENT_V24 is active, this assignment makes protx update_registrar default to version 3, but legacy masternodes (dmn->pdmnState->nVersion == LegacyBLS) are still required by IsVersionChangeValid in src/evo/specialtxman.cpp to move to version 2 before any higher version. As a result, the RPC now constructs transactions that fail with bad-protx-version-upgrade for legacy nodes, which breaks the legacy→basic upgrade path (and related registrar updates) via the standard RPC. update_service and revoke already avoid this with a BasicBLS clamp, so update_registrar is now inconsistent and regresses behavior introduced by this commit.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
Note Reviews pausedIt looks like this branch is under active development. To avoid overwhelming you with review comments due to an influx of new commits, CodeRabbit has automatically paused this review. You can configure this behavior by changing the Use the following commands to manage reviews:
Use the checkboxes below for quick actions:
WalkthroughThis PR restructures ProTx version handling by introducing a shared Estimated code review effort: 4 (Complex) | ~75 minutes Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant RPC as RPC (protx_register/update)
participant Validation as validation.cpp
participant SpecialTxMan as specialtxman.cpp
participant ProviderTx as CProRegTx/CProUpRegTx/CProUpServTx/CProUpRevTx
RPC->>Validation: DeploymentToProtxVersion(pindexPrev, chainman, override)
Validation-->>RPC: nVersion
RPC->>ProviderTx: construct payload with nVersion
RPC->>SpecialTxMan: submit transaction
SpecialTxMan->>SpecialTxMan: GetValidatedPayload<ProTx>(tx, pindexPrev, chainman, state)
SpecialTxMan->>Validation: DeploymentToProtxVersion(pindexPrev, chainman)
Validation-->>SpecialTxMan: max allowed version
SpecialTxMan->>ProviderTx: IsTriviallyValid(state)
ProviderTx-->>SpecialTxMan: valid/invalid + reject reason
SpecialTxMan-->>RPC: accepted payload or bad-protx-version error
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers: 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
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. Comment |
knst
force-pushed
the
fix-providertx-versions
branch
from
ed4d9c6 to
f94f7cc
Compare
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
src/evo/providertx.h (1)
95-99: ⚡ Quick win
GetValidatedPayload<T>is not full validation.These comments overstate the helper’s contract. As implemented in
src/evo/specialtxman.cpp,GetValidatedPayloadonly covers payload decoding, deployment-gated version bounds, andIsTriviallyValid(...); callers still needCheckPro*Txfor collateral, masternode-list, signature, input-hash, and version-transition checks. Please reword this so future call sites don’t treat the helper as sufficient consensus validation.Also applies to: 160-164, 211-215, 265-269
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@src/evo/providertx.h` around lines 95 - 99, The comment for IsTriviallyValid overstresses GetValidatedPayload<T> — update the wording to clearly state that GetValidatedPayload<T> only performs payload decoding, deployment-gated version bounds checks and calls IsTriviallyValid, and that callers must still run full consensus checks (e.g., CheckProRegTx / CheckProUpServTx or other CheckPro*Tx functions) to validate collateral, masternode-list state, signatures, input-hash and version-transition rules; change the docstring near IsTriviallyValid and the similar comments at the other three locations to explicitly list those remaining checks and not present GetValidatedPayload<T> as full validation.src/test/evo_trivialvalidation.cpp (1)
61-64: ⚡ Quick winAdd a post-v24 fixture path here.
This runner still collapses the matrix to
"legacy"vs"basic", so none of the new version-3 behavior introduced in this PR gets exercised. Please add an"extaddr"/post-v24 branch and vectors for at leastCProUpRegTxandCProUpRevTx.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@src/test/evo_trivialvalidation.cpp` around lines 61 - 64, The test currently only selects between "basic" and "legacy" via test[2].get_str() when setting pindexPrev, so post-v24/extaddr vectors aren't exercised; update the selection logic (replace the two-way ternary around pindexPrev or add an if/else/switch) to handle a third value "extaddr" and pick an appropriate CBlockIndex from chainman.ActiveChain() for the post-v24 path, and add corresponding test vectors for CProUpRegTx and CProUpRevTx in the test matrix so the "extaddr" branch is executed during the trivial validation runner.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@src/evo/specialtxman.h`:
- Around line 101-103: The template function GetValidatedPayload is defined in a
.cpp which will cause linker errors because the tests instantiate it for
concrete types; fix by either moving the full template definition into the
header where it's declared (so the compiler can instantiate for CProRegTx,
CProUpServTx, CProUpRegTx, CProUpRevTx) or, if you keep the definition in
specialtxman.cpp, add explicit template instantiations for
GetValidatedPayload<CProRegTx>, GetValidatedPayload<CProUpServTx>,
GetValidatedPayload<CProUpRegTx>, and GetValidatedPayload<CProUpRevTx> in that
.cpp so the linker sees the generated symbols.
---
Nitpick comments:
In `@src/evo/providertx.h`:
- Around line 95-99: The comment for IsTriviallyValid overstresses
GetValidatedPayload<T> — update the wording to clearly state that
GetValidatedPayload<T> only performs payload decoding, deployment-gated version
bounds checks and calls IsTriviallyValid, and that callers must still run full
consensus checks (e.g., CheckProRegTx / CheckProUpServTx or other CheckPro*Tx
functions) to validate collateral, masternode-list state, signatures, input-hash
and version-transition rules; change the docstring near IsTriviallyValid and the
similar comments at the other three locations to explicitly list those remaining
checks and not present GetValidatedPayload<T> as full validation.
In `@src/test/evo_trivialvalidation.cpp`:
- Around line 61-64: The test currently only selects between "basic" and
"legacy" via test[2].get_str() when setting pindexPrev, so post-v24/extaddr
vectors aren't exercised; update the selection logic (replace the two-way
ternary around pindexPrev or add an if/else/switch) to handle a third value
"extaddr" and pick an appropriate CBlockIndex from chainman.ActiveChain() for
the post-v24 path, and add corresponding test vectors for CProUpRegTx and
CProUpRevTx in the test matrix so the "extaddr" branch is executed during the
trivial validation runner.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Repository UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: e2a718c8-ebeb-4c10-8f6b-eedbc74713c3
📒 Files selected for processing (17)
src/evo/deterministicmns.hsrc/evo/dmnstate.hsrc/evo/netinfo.cppsrc/evo/providertx.cppsrc/evo/providertx.hsrc/evo/simplifiedmns.hsrc/evo/smldiff.hsrc/evo/specialtxman.cppsrc/evo/specialtxman.hsrc/evo/types.hsrc/llmq/commitment.cppsrc/rpc/evo.cppsrc/test/data/trivially_invalid.jsonsrc/test/evo_trivialvalidation.cppsrc/validation.cppsrc/validation.htest/lint/lint-circular-dependencies.py
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (3)
- src/evo/dmnstate.h
- src/evo/smldiff.h
- src/evo/deterministicmns.h
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (5)
- src/llmq/commitment.cpp
- src/evo/types.h
- src/test/data/trivially_invalid.json
- test/lint/lint-circular-dependencies.py
- src/evo/simplifiedmns.h
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (5)
- src/evo/netinfo.cpp
- src/validation.cpp
- src/validation.h
- src/evo/specialtxman.cpp
- src/evo/providertx.cpp
thepastaclaw
left a comment
thepastaclaw
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
The refactor is sound but introduces a regression in the non-legacy protx update_registrar RPC: after V24 activates, it produces a v3 ProUpRegTx that consensus rejects when the masternode is still in LegacyBLS state, and also trips a CHECK_NONFATAL when the caller reuses the existing legacy operator key. Sibling RPCs (update_service, revoke) have the correct BasicBLS clamp and update_registrar should match. Test coverage for the newly-permitted v3 ProUpRegTx/ProUpRevTx path is also missing.
Reviewed commit: f94f7cc
🔴 1 blocking | 🟡 1 suggestion(s)
1 additional finding
🟡 suggestion: No regression coverage for the newly-permitted v3 ProUpRegTx/ProUpRevTx path
src/test/evo_trivialvalidation.cpp (lines 60-64)
This PR removes the bad-protx-version-tx-type consensus check that previously rejected CProUpRegTx/CProUpRevTx at version 3, and routes the test harness through the same GetValidatedPayload path consensus uses. However, the harness still only accepts "basic" and "legacy" vectors and leaves a TODO for extended addresses, so none of the new acceptance rules are actually exercised at a post-V24 height. Adding a v3 ProUpRegTx/ProUpRevTx vector validated against a post-V24 pindexPrev would lock in the new contract and protect against accidental re-introduction of the dropped check.
🤖 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 `src/rpc/evo.cpp`:
- [BLOCKING] lines 1139-1140: `protx update_registrar` produces an invalid v3 payload for legacy-state masternodes after V24
After V24 activates, `DeploymentToProtxVersion(tip, chainman, /*is_basic_override=*/!use_legacy)` returns `ProTxVersion::ExtAddr` (3) for the non-legacy path. Previously, `GetMaxFromDeployment<CProUpRegTx>` capped this at `BasicBLS` (2) for registrar updates. Two consequences:
1. If the underlying masternode is still at state version `LegacyBLS` (1), `IsVersionChangeValid` (specialtxman.cpp:907-909) rejects the v3 jump with `bad-protx-version-upgrade`. There is no longer a working non-legacy RPC path to migrate a legacy masternode via `update_registrar`.
2. If the caller leaves the operator key unchanged, `ptx.pubKeyOperator` is reused from `dmn->pdmnState`, which is legacy. The `CHECK_NONFATAL(ptx.pubKeyOperator.IsLegacy() == (ptx.nVersion == ProTxVersion::LegacyBLS))` at line 1159 then trips (true == false).
The sibling wrappers `protx update_service` (1014-1018) and `protx revoke` (1268-1272) already clamp to BasicBLS in this case. `update_registrar` needs the same clamp. Real-world impact is limited because V24 is `NEVER_ACTIVE` on mainnet/testnet, but the regression is real and silently breaks devnet/regtest setups.
In `src/test/evo_trivialvalidation.cpp`:
- [SUGGESTION] lines 60-64: No regression coverage for the newly-permitted v3 ProUpRegTx/ProUpRevTx path
This PR removes the `bad-protx-version-tx-type` consensus check that previously rejected `CProUpRegTx`/`CProUpRevTx` at version 3, and routes the test harness through the same `GetValidatedPayload` path consensus uses. However, the harness still only accepts `"basic"` and `"legacy"` vectors and leaves a TODO for extended addresses, so none of the new acceptance rules are actually exercised at a post-V24 height. Adding a v3 ProUpRegTx/ProUpRevTx vector validated against a post-V24 `pindexPrev` would lock in the new contract and protect against accidental re-introduction of the dropped check.
| ptx.nVersion = DeploymentToProtxVersion(WITH_LOCK(::cs_main, return chainman.ActiveChain().Tip()), chainman, | ||
| /*is_basic_override=*/!use_legacy); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🔴 Blocking: protx update_registrar produces an invalid v3 payload for legacy-state masternodes after V24
After V24 activates, DeploymentToProtxVersion(tip, chainman, /*is_basic_override=*/!use_legacy) returns ProTxVersion::ExtAddr (3) for the non-legacy path. Previously, GetMaxFromDeployment<CProUpRegTx> capped this at BasicBLS (2) for registrar updates. Two consequences:
-
If the underlying masternode is still at state version
LegacyBLS(1),IsVersionChangeValid(specialtxman.cpp:907-909) rejects the v3 jump withbad-protx-version-upgrade. There is no longer a working non-legacy RPC path to migrate a legacy masternode viaupdate_registrar. -
If the caller leaves the operator key unchanged,
ptx.pubKeyOperatoris reused fromdmn->pdmnState, which is legacy. TheCHECK_NONFATAL(ptx.pubKeyOperator.IsLegacy() == (ptx.nVersion == ProTxVersion::LegacyBLS))at line 1159 then trips (true == false).
The sibling wrappers protx update_service (1014-1018) and protx revoke (1268-1272) already clamp to BasicBLS in this case. update_registrar needs the same clamp. Real-world impact is limited because V24 is NEVER_ACTIVE on mainnet/testnet, but the regression is real and silently breaks devnet/regtest setups.
source: ['claude', 'codex']
🤖 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 `src/rpc/evo.cpp`:
- [BLOCKING] lines 1139-1140: `protx update_registrar` produces an invalid v3 payload for legacy-state masternodes after V24
After V24 activates, `DeploymentToProtxVersion(tip, chainman, /*is_basic_override=*/!use_legacy)` returns `ProTxVersion::ExtAddr` (3) for the non-legacy path. Previously, `GetMaxFromDeployment<CProUpRegTx>` capped this at `BasicBLS` (2) for registrar updates. Two consequences:
1. If the underlying masternode is still at state version `LegacyBLS` (1), `IsVersionChangeValid` (specialtxman.cpp:907-909) rejects the v3 jump with `bad-protx-version-upgrade`. There is no longer a working non-legacy RPC path to migrate a legacy masternode via `update_registrar`.
2. If the caller leaves the operator key unchanged, `ptx.pubKeyOperator` is reused from `dmn->pdmnState`, which is legacy. The `CHECK_NONFATAL(ptx.pubKeyOperator.IsLegacy() == (ptx.nVersion == ProTxVersion::LegacyBLS))` at line 1159 then trips (true == false).
The sibling wrappers `protx update_service` (1014-1018) and `protx revoke` (1268-1272) already clamp to BasicBLS in this case. `update_registrar` needs the same clamp. Real-world impact is limited because V24 is `NEVER_ACTIVE` on mainnet/testnet, but the regression is real and silently breaks devnet/regtest setups.
kwvg
left a comment
kwvg
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Concept NACK
From commit d86d571
CProRegTx and CProUpServTx used to be the only type of protx that have
a different version. It is theoretically acceptable in assumption that
there is no new features or version will ever be introduced for protx
special transaction.
The versioning system made an assumption that any change in ProTx structures will affect all fields uniformly, leaving certain fields v2 and others v3 allows us to prevent unexpected upgrades based on changes to fields that were never modified and thus prevents the propagation of serialisation directives based on fields never changed.
Even if the RPC sets the version we intend, removing a way to distinguish what txType is allowed to set the version at the consensus level means a patch in RPC could allow corruption of the masternode list as it'll see a v3 transaction, assume v3 serialization and then on client restart, cannot recognise the bytes on disk as it's v2 bytes but v3 version.
A theoretical v4 would follow the same pattern, set the version where the fields could be updated (always at creation OR for existing nodes, when the relevant ProTx is submitted) and then version-solve accordingly. The current system doesn't block that.
Let's assume that revocation is now at v4, future rules could force that you first upgrade to v3 by submitting a new ProUpRegTx (explicit user action that submits the new ser format) to then use v4 ProUpRevTx (to avoid getting a v2 to v4 not allowed error).
| return state.Invalid(TxValidationResult::TX_CONSENSUS, "bad-protx-version-upgrade"); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (tx_type != TRANSACTION_PROVIDER_UPDATE_SERVICE && tx_version == ProTxVersion::ExtAddr) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason we have version transition rules is to prevent the node from being classed as ExtAddr without actually opting in to it at creation or by explicitly updating the service.
Especially since once the version is upgraded the serialisation format changes. By classifying all transactions ExtAddr, a revoke transaction could indicate that the node intends to follow ExtAddr serialization when that was a) not the user's intention and b) will cause serialization mismatches which are very dependent on the version (see below)
Lines 78 to 79 in 4a0fd85
|
|
||
|
|
||
| /** | ||
| * This helper does some trivial validations that doesn't depends on collateral and |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These changes are valuable but must be decoupled from changes in consensus behavior
| /** Get highest permissible ProTx version based on deployment status | ||
| * Note: The override is needed because some RPCs need to use deployment status information for everything *except* | ||
| * the BLS version upgrade since they are specializations for a specific BLS version. This is a one-off. | ||
| * TODO: Resolve this oddity. Consider deprecating legacy BLS-only RPCs so we can remove them eventually. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| * TODO: Resolve this oddity. Consider deprecating legacy BLS-only RPCs so we can remove them eventually. |
We can probably drop this TODO since the legacy RPCs won't be going anywhere even after deprecation due to hard requirements in functional tests, we already have network rules to enforce the deprecation at a consensus level but the RPCs themselves remain indispensible.
No, they would not, because:
|
The issue isn't the new node creation path, it's the upgrade path, say
But without at a minimum restricting the upgrade path, a specially crafted transaction could update the expected serialization to v3 with a ProUpRevTx (despite holding no service data but now allowed to mark itself as v3) and then on restart, when reading the masternode list and encountering a v3, find the v2 bytes unrecognizable and emit an error. |
I will write some extra tests; PR is draft temporary |
|
This pull request has conflicts, please rebase. |
knst
force-pushed
the
fix-providertx-versions
branch
from
f94f7cc to
a016390
Compare
|
This pull request has conflicts, please rebase. |
knst
force-pushed
the
fix-providertx-versions
branch
from
a016390 to
ff6151b
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: ff6151b1a7
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
| if (obj.nVersion >= ProTxVersion::ExtAddr) { | ||
| READWRITE(obj.payouts); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because v3 states now take the payouts branch, a basic v2 masternode upgraded by a post-v24 ProUpServTx loses its owner payee: the service-update path in CSpecialTxProcessor::RebuildListFromBlock can raise nVersion from 2 to 3 while only converting netInfo, and v2 states have an empty payouts vector because they serialized scriptPayout. After that, GetOwnerPayouts(state) returns an empty list, so masternode payment construction omits the owner payout (and callers that use .front() can fail) until a registrar update backfills it. Please migrate scriptPayout to LegacyPayoutAsList when any non-registrar version bump crosses ExtAddr.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
…dation This commit replaces usage of helpers GetPayload+IsTrivialValid to GetValidatedPayload It unifies validation between regression tests and production code and useful for the next commits in PR
CProRegTx and CProUpServTx used to be the only type of protx that have a different version. It is theoretically acceptable in assumption that there is no new features or version will ever be introduced for protx special transaction. Though, for better compatibility for futher version, unification, simplicity of documentation and to reduce user's confusions for after-v24 version of CProUpRegTx and CProUpRevTx are allowed to be "ext addresses" even they don't have any network related fields _at the moment_ So, since now: - version 1: legacy BLS, extended addresses disallowed (pre v19 fork) - version 2: basic BLS, extended addresses disallowed (since v19 fork) - version 3: basic BLS, extended addresses allowed, multi-payouts allowed (since v24 fork) NOTE: there are also classes CSimplifiedMNListEntry and CDeterministicMNState use the same enum for its version; moreover CDeterministicMNState inherits version directly from CProRegTx. This refactoring doesn't contradict or conflict this behavior
It helps to drop multiple circular dependencies for providertx <-> validation.h as a side effect
knst
force-pushed
the
fix-providertx-versions
branch
from
58e6cb7 to
2d62450
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 2d6245089c
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
| if (dmn->pdmnState->nVersion == ProTxVersion::LegacyBLS && ptx.nVersion > ProTxVersion::BasicBLS) { | ||
| ptx.nVersion = ProTxVersion::BasicBLS; | ||
| } | ||
| ptx.nVersion = DeploymentToProtxVersion(WITH_LOCK(::cs_main, return chainman.ActiveChain().Tip()), chainman); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When this RPC is used for a legacy v1 masternode after v24, it now builds a v3 service update instead of the previous v2 clamp. The service-update apply path updates the state version/netInfo but never calls pubKeyOperator.SetLegacy(false), so the in-memory deterministic list can contain a v3 state whose operator key still hashes/serializes with the legacy scheme until a reload. Because unique-property hashes serialize CBLSLazyPublicKey using its stored scheme, duplicate-key checks against a normal v3/basic key can miss, and later registrar updates that reuse the key hit the version/key invariant. Either keep legacy service updates at v2 or normalize the operator key when the state crosses out of LegacyBLS.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| obj.nOperatorReward | ||
| ); | ||
| if (obj.nVersion >= ProTxVersion::MultiPayout) { | ||
| if (obj.nVersion >= ProTxVersion::ExtAddr) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Changing the v3 CProRegTx branch to read a payout-share vector changes the wire format for version-3 registrations. Under the previous code, a v3 registration valid after v24 serialized scriptPayout at this point; after upgrade the same bytes are interpreted as payouts_count plus share entries, so replaying old blocks or raw transactions containing old-format v3 ProRegTx payloads can fail deserialization or reconstruct a different payload. Please add a legacy v3 decoder/migration or use a new version/key for the new layout instead of reusing v3 with different bytes.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
Verified the current PR stack at 2d62450 against the prior review artifact and the current source. Carried-forward prior findings remain for the review-feedback test commit and the ProUpRevTx corrective split; the old MasternodePayoutShare commit-subject nit is fixed. New confirmed findings are limited to commit organization around the payout migration fix/test and one stale unit-test name.
Source: reviewers claude-general (opus, failed: usage limit), claude-dash-core-commit-history (opus, failed: usage limit), codex-general (gpt-5.5), codex-dash-core-commit-history (gpt-5.5); verifier codex (gpt-5.5).
🟡 2 suggestion(s) | 💬 2 nitpick(s)
Prior Reconciliation
- prior-72bb63bd-1 — STILL_VALID: The review-feedback test commit persists at
174ab3724dand is carried forward below. - prior-72bb63bd-2 — FIXED: The rebased
MasternodePayoutSharesubject now uses the post-rename class name. - prior-72bb63bd-3 — STILL_VALID: The ProUpRevTx corrective fix and regression test are still split from the logical versioning change and are carried forward below.
Carried-Forward Prior Findings
-
[SUGGESTION] commit:174ab3724d:1: Squash or reword the review-feedback test commit
Prior finding prior-72bb63bd-1 is still valid at 174ab37 (test: address review comments about preserving v2 / v3 version for dmnstate). The subject describes the review process rather than the durable behavior, and the diff adds V24 ProTx dmnstate-version preservation coverage for behavior introduced by 582dcd7. Either fold it into that logical versioning change or reword it to a durable subject such astest: cover v24 ProTx dmnstate version preservation. -
[NITPICK] commit:7a78f0f589:1: Fold the ProUpRevTx corrective fix and regression test into the versioning change
Prior finding prior-72bb63bd-3 remains valid after the rebase. Commit 7a78f0f fixes ProUpRevTx state-version preservation introduced earlier in this PR by the ProTx versioning changes, and 175fc93 adds the matching regression test. Leaving these as separate later commits makes the unsquashed history contain a known-bad intermediate ProUpRevTx state-version behavior, which is a bisect hazard for consensus/state-versioning changes.
New Findings In Latest Delta
-
[SUGGESTION] commit:12a9ceda9e:1: Fold the payout migration fix and regression test into the version merge
Commit 12a9ced (fix: empty payouts after v4->v3 merge) directly corrects behavior introduced by 857f1da (fix!: merge v3 and v4 protx versions so far as they introduced by the same fork):SetStateVersionnow migrates a legacyscriptPayoutinto the v3 payout list before the early return, and the current HEAD commit adds the matching regression coverage. Because this stack lands unsquashed, the history would contain a known-bad intermediate state where v4-to-v3 migration can leave payouts empty. Fold 12a9ced and 2d62450 into 857f1da so the version merge is self-contained. -
[NITPICK] src/test/evo_deterministicmns_tests.cpp:1259: Rename the test case to match the valid behavior
The test case is still namedproupreg_v3_on_legacy_rejected, but it callsFuncProUpRegTxV3OnLegacyValid, which builds a v3 ProUpRegTx on a legacy state and assertsCheckProUpRegTx(...)succeeds with a valid state. This makes test logs and failures report the opposite of the behavior being covered.
🤖 Prompt for actionable 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 `<commit:12a9ceda9e>`:
- [SUGGESTION] <commit:12a9ceda9e>:1: Fold the payout migration fix and regression test into the version merge
Commit 12a9ceda9e (`fix: empty payouts after v4->v3 merge`) directly corrects behavior introduced by 857f1da7a5 (`fix!: merge v3 and v4 protx versions so far as they introduced by the same fork`): `SetStateVersion` now migrates a legacy `scriptPayout` into the v3 payout list before the early return, and the current HEAD commit adds the matching regression coverage. Because this stack lands unsquashed, the history would contain a known-bad intermediate state where v4-to-v3 migration can leave payouts empty. Fold 12a9ceda9e and 2d6245089c into 857f1da7a5 so the version merge is self-contained.
In `<commit:174ab3724d>`:
- [SUGGESTION] <commit:174ab3724d>:1: Squash or reword the review-feedback test commit
Prior finding prior-72bb63bd-1 is still valid at 174ab3724d (`test: address review comments about preserving v2 / v3 version for dmnstate`). The subject describes the review process rather than the durable behavior, and the diff adds V24 ProTx dmnstate-version preservation coverage for behavior introduced by 582dcd701a. Either fold it into that logical versioning change or reword it to a durable subject such as `test: cover v24 ProTx dmnstate version preservation`.
| BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(proupreg_v3_on_legacy_rejected) | ||
| { | ||
| TestChainV24SignalBeforeV19Setup setup; | ||
| FuncProUpRegTxV4OnLegacyRejected(setup); | ||
| FuncProUpRegTxV3OnLegacyValid(setup); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💬 Nitpick: Rename the test case to match the valid behavior
The test case is still named proupreg_v3_on_legacy_rejected, but it calls FuncProUpRegTxV3OnLegacyValid, which builds a v3 ProUpRegTx on a legacy state and asserts CheckProUpRegTx(...) succeeds with a valid state. This makes test logs and failures report the opposite of the behavior being covered.
| BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(proupreg_v3_on_legacy_rejected) | |
| { | |
| TestChainV24SignalBeforeV19Setup setup; | |
| FuncProUpRegTxV4OnLegacyRejected(setup); | |
| FuncProUpRegTxV3OnLegacyValid(setup); | |
| BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(proupreg_v3_on_legacy_valid) | |
| { | |
| TestChainV24SignalBeforeV19Setup setup; | |
| FuncProUpRegTxV3OnLegacyValid(setup); | |
| } |
source: ['codex']
thepastaclaw
left a comment
thepastaclaw
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Clearing my stale request-changes state for the current head 2d6245089c6637340a5c47ca6d2c8564c04fc8e5.
My latest review on this head has no blocking findings (2 suggestion(s) | 2 nitpick(s)), so the older CHANGES_REQUESTED review should no longer be the effective state.
Potential PR merge conflictsThis is advisory only. It does not block CI, but it marks PRs that will likely need a rebase depending on merge order. If these PRs merge firstThis PR will likely need a rebase:
|
|
This isn't a fix? It's a breaking change, I guess it's a breaking refactor? Idk, I don't really understand the purpose of this change |
there are several improvements on consensus level for v24 fork are done:
Everything else in PR is just multiple simplifications of implementation and extra functional tests to be sure that corner cases such as v1 -> v3 upgrades works fine. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The underlying semantic concern that an unrelated transaction acting as a trigger for the upgrade despite having nothing related to the features of the upgrade hasn't been addressed though the data integrity risk seems to have been mitigated. Looking at the available provider transactions
| Transaction | Effect of upgrade |
|---|---|
ProRegTx |
Change in how payouts and network addresses are represented. |
ProUpServTx |
Change in how network addresses are represented. |
ProUpRegTx |
Change in how payouts are represented. |
ProUpRevTx |
No changes. |
Yet issuing a ProUpRevTx with v3 will trigger the upgrade (and update the masternode state) despite having no affected fields because it remains a valid version for all provider transactions despite having no effect in behaviour or layout of the affected transaction (ProUpRevTx), it isn't overtly dangerous but still undesirable behaviour.
Consider prohibiting v3 ProUpRevTxs at the consensus-level.
|
@kwvg I don't see any đownside of PR's behavior. Can you prove me wrong? |
|
@knst it's a matter of user intent, if an operator intends to revoke, it should only perform a revocation and nothing else. It is understandable to expect that creating a new node post-fork will apply post-fork latest version or attempting to update affected fields implicitly performs an upgrade but an operator that doesn't wish to upgrade (for whatever reason) will be performing it unless they go out of their way to specially craft a revoke transaction that preserves the existing version. If this is considered acceptable, it needs to be documented that issuing any ProTx post-fork will auto-upgrade you to the new ruleset. |
what exactly is user intent? Keep v2 after v24 fork? For what a reason? Why do you even to let user control v2 - >v3 upgrade after v24 fork? v24 fork is activated - v3 protx is default available and created by all RPCs for new masternodes and existing v2 masternodes ; only v1 is available for legacy masternodes. I can't even possible think why some masternode owner will be like "ok, I must have v2 protx" |
Because with v1 -> v2, the expectation was set that an upgrade is opt-in, v2 -> v3 breaks that expectation. Even if the optionality was for technical reasons that don't apply here (change of signature scheme vs data layout), once that expectation is set, deviating from that at a minimum requires notification.
A conservative attitude towards upgrading to the latest format is not out of the question (wanting to be the last adopter, concern for PoSe bans if a bug surfaces that affects only v3 node states, etc.). There is no forcing function at the protocol level to compel an upgrade, the auto-upgrade is an artifact of the way the transaction is generated at the RPC level, so at a minimum operators should be aware that even engaging in an unrelated operation (like revocation) will trigger the upgrade unless they go out of their way to craft a transaction that doesn't trigger the transition. |
you mention again "non-intentional upgrade". Can you tell me, what exactly is meant to be upgraded by MNO's point of view? |
4 participants
Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Until now, CProRegTx and CProUpServTx were the only ProTx subtypes that could carry a higher version (v3, ext-addresses). With v4 introduced with masternode payout this gap is even more strange.
What was done?
For better forward-compatibility, uniform documentation, and less user confusion, after v24 CProUpRegTx and CProUpRevTx are also allowed to use the "ext-addresses" version, even though they don't carry any network-related fields at the moment.
Functionality of "multi-payout" is merged to v3 protx; v4 protx are removed.
They both activated by v24 fork and that's possible that multiple-payout masternode is using external address; it's completely find situation and existing v4 separation is artificial.
From now on:
NOTE: CSimplifiedMNListEntry and CDeterministicMNState use the same enum for its version; moreover CDeterministicMNState inherits version directly from CProRegTx. This refactoring is possible due already existing versioning of state's object.
It also simplifies the implementation, drops the dependency of evo/providertx.h on validation.h and reduces the number of circular dependencies over evo/providertx.
The regression test now goes through the same GetValidatedPayload helper that consensus uses, instead of calling GetTxPayload + IsTriviallyValid directly.
How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit / functional tests.
Breaking Changes
After v24, CProUpRegTx and CProUpRevTx may now be serialized at version 3, which they were previously not eligible for. The bad-protx-version-tx-type consensus check is removed accordingly so these txes are accepted at version 3.
v4 protx is removed by merging functionality to v3. They are activated by the same fork and this diversion is not required.
Checklist: