-
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
fix: use blocks-only instead of address-only for inventory #6163
fix: use blocks-only instead of address-only for inventory #6163
Conversation
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 7200022
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 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.
👍
ACK 7200022
7200022
to
3468ab3
Compare
signed commit |
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 3468ab3; no diff
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 3468ab3
…inventory 3468ab3 fix: use blocks-only instead of address-only for inventory (Konstantin Akimov) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented Mobile client (without full blockchain) can't receive transactions before they are mined in the block. ## What was done? Fixed a condition "is an addr relay" to "not a block relay". It's an alternate solution for dashpay#6162 ## How Has This Been Tested? Tested with hashengineering - it works! ## Breaking Changes N/A ## Checklist: - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone ACKs for top commit: PastaPastaPasta: utACK [3468ab3](dashpay@3468ab3); no diff kwvg: utACK 3468ab3 Tree-SHA512: 6ad257a72be0f2fd4d7a8e3674d537e2a2c5f0c7c1bdfdf825403d8cb2975261bcf4574949fb02a16de76762d3f30b40e094be448cfa4ee6bae9f1f5be5f44d5
5619c8f docs: add release notes for v21.0.1 and archive v21.0.0 (pasta) 9e80d12 Merge #6163: fix: use blocks-only instead of address-only for inventory (pasta) e10c5c9 Merge #6160: feat: add sbom and provenance in release for dockerhub; use jammy; apt remove as possible (pasta) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented Backport PRs for v21.0.1 ## What was done? See commits ## How Has This Been Tested? See CI ## Breaking Changes None ## Checklist: _Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that apply._ - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_ ACKs for top commit: knst: utACK 5619c8f kwvg: utACK 5619c8f UdjinM6: utACK 5619c8f Tree-SHA512: 42c1e31319775e5800da2d82af00cae3aa0cee3baadd0123a809efc246d4ca5d0e6a4166b574e6ddebf66c0a80f4ee1655caff085f1687bb533889414a9fd4cf
56cc39d chore: bump version to 21.0.2 (pasta) 5619c8f docs: add release notes for v21.0.1 and archive v21.0.0 (pasta) 9e80d12 Merge #6163: fix: use blocks-only instead of address-only for inventory (pasta) e10c5c9 Merge #6160: feat: add sbom and provenance in release for dockerhub; use jammy; apt remove as possible (pasta) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented ## What was done? ## How Has This Been Tested? ## Breaking Changes ## Checklist: - [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_ ACKs for top commit: PastaPastaPasta: utACK 0c11f0e; kwvg: utACK 0c11f0e Tree-SHA512: c8f81678ba9a742b3e1a674ffc291e30d63900fd1e1328bf5528210d0a983b9c5c9b3960ce76fd6ed8fd7014a92e09dcfa093bcd7a4bad2e3ea2d5e849ee28bc
Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Mobile client (without full blockchain) can't receive transactions before they are mined in the block.
What was done?
Fixed a condition "is an addr relay" to "not a block relay".
It's an alternate solution for #6162
How Has This Been Tested?
Tested with hashengineering - it works!
Breaking Changes
N/A
Checklist: