-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 291
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
Intro: Have user choose assumevalid #149
Conversation
f7e95fe
to
15f007c
Compare
Concept ACK on allowing the GUI user to opt-out of |
@Sjors Any suggestions for the text? Note that validation is largely a black-and-white thing: unless you validate everything, you might as well be validating nothing. I think the only exception is the PoW? |
I'm pretty sure it also checks that coins aren't created out of nothing (i.e. it checks a coin spends outpoints and tracks which new ones it creates, and that the amounts add up). |
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.
Concept ACK
Hm, I keep getting errors when trying to compile
|
|
15f007c
to
253e500
Compare
Rebased, reviews addressed |
253e500
to
88863cf
Compare
Sorry for a lot of "n/a's" @luke-jr , I guess I need to up my diff reading game... |
88863cf
to
75aff9e
Compare
75aff9e
to
cf940f0
Compare
Rebased |
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers. ReviewsSee the guideline for information on the review process.
If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update. ConflictsReviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:
If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first. |
🐙 This pull request conflicts with the target branch and needs rebase. |
Please rebase if this PR is still relevant. |
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.
tACK cf940f0
Without -assumevalid
its checkbox is ticked:
Witth -assumevalid
its checkbox is un-ticked:
On -signet
& -tesnet
behave similarly, block hash updates correctly ofc.
On -regtest the layoutAssumeValid
is not visible:
Shouldn't we reduce the empty space/ windows size a bit when the layoutAssumeValid
is not visible? As currently without this PR:
I think this shouldn't happen -assumevalid=23aaa
:
if (gArgs.IsArgSet("-assumevalid")) { | ||
const auto user_assumevalid = gArgs.GetArg("-assumevalid", /* ignored default; determines return type */ ""); | ||
if (uint256S(user_assumevalid).IsNull()) { | ||
// -assumevalid=0: default checkbox to off, and initialise with chainparams later | ||
ui->assumevalid->setChecked(false); | ||
} else { | ||
// -assumevalid=blockhash: initialise with the user-specified value, enabled | ||
ui->assumevalid->setChecked(true); | ||
ui->assumevalidBlock->setText(QString::fromStdString(user_assumevalid)); | ||
have_user_assumevalid = true; | ||
} | ||
} |
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.
nit: while not mandatory nor blocker, maybe you could consider refactoring these if
statements into functions like the above UpdateFreeSpaceLabel()
, as it could improve code readability and maintainability, especially as we keep adding more logic.
There hasn't been much activity lately and the patch still needs rebase. What is the status here?
|
Concept ACK |
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.
⌛ There hasn't been much activity lately and the patch still needs rebase. What is the status here?
|
🤔 There hasn't been much activity lately and the CI seems to be failing. If no one reviewed the current pull request by commit hash, a rebase can be considered. While the CI failure may be a false positive, the CI hasn't been running for some time, so there may be a real issue hiding as well. A rebase triggers the latest CI and makes sure that no silent merge conflicts have snuck in. |
Realistically anyone who wants to use this probably won't do so the first time they install the node. So they'll have to carefully delete the blocks and chainstate from their data dir, wipe the GUI settings and trigger this dialog again. It seems both easier and safer to encourage such a user to add I don't think we should be cluttering the Intro screen for this, especially when looking ahead to Assume UTXO. |
Closing due to author's inactivity (the branch has been required to be rebased for months). Feel free to re-open. |
Context: https://twitter.com/notgrubles/status/1297671475059728390