Skip to content

Show softfork status in getblockchaininfo #6353

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
laanwj merged 1 commit into from
Jul 1, 2015
Merged

Show softfork status in getblockchaininfo #6353

laanwj merged 1 commit into from
Jul 1, 2015

Conversation

@laanwj
Copy link
Member

@laanwj laanwj commented Jun 29, 2015 

  "softforks": [            (array) status of softforks in progress
     {
        "id": "xxxx",        (string) name of softfork
        "version": xx,         (numeric) block version
        "enforce": {           (object) progress toward enforcing the softfork rules
           "status": xx,       (boolean) true if threshold reached
           "found": xx,        (numeric) number of blocks with the new version found
           "required": xx,     (numeric) number of blocks required to trigger
           "window": xx,       (numeric) size of examined window of recent blocks
        },
        "reject": { ... }      (object) progress toward rejecting pre-softfork blocks (same fields as for "enforce")
     }, ...
  ]

@laanwj laanwj force-pushed the 2015_06_softforkinfo branch from 2aca65e to 45d796c Compare June 29, 2015 07:51
@btcdrak
Copy link
Contributor

btcdrak commented Jun 29, 2015

Tested ACK

@petertodd
Copy link
Contributor

petertodd commented Jun 29, 2015

Tested ACK.

One minor nit is the way the "found" bit caps out at found==required. I think removing the "&& nFound < nRequired" clause in the for loop should be safe; the nFound > nRequired part at the end should never be triggered. But just documenting it would be safer.

@laanwj
Copy link
Member Author

laanwj commented Jun 29, 2015

One minor nit is the way the "found" bit caps out at found==required. I think removing the "&& nFound < nRequired" clause in the for loop should be safe; the nFound > nRequired part at the end should never be triggered. But just documenting it would be safer.

I've thought about cloning the IsSuperMajority in rpcblockhain.cpp, with that change, leaving the original one as-is. It is only a few lines. Then it also doesn't need to be exported from main anymore.

@btcdrak
Copy link
Contributor

btcdrak commented Jun 29, 2015

@laanwj Sounds like a good solution.

@petertodd
Copy link
Contributor

petertodd commented Jun 29, 2015

@laanwj ACK that.

@laanwj laanwj force-pushed the 2015_06_softforkinfo branch from a77221c to f168e66 Compare June 29, 2015 09:35
@jtimon
Copy link
Contributor

jtimon commented Jun 29, 2015

ut ACK

@CodeShark
Copy link
Contributor

CodeShark commented Jul 1, 2015

tACK

fanquake
fanquake reviewed Jul 1, 2015
View reviewed changes
src/rpcblockchain.cpp Outdated
Copy link
Member

@fanquake fanquake Jul 1, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: /**

Copy link
Member Author

@laanwj laanwj Jul 1, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed

@fanquake
Copy link
Member

fanquake commented Jul 1, 2015

utACK

@laanwj laanwj force-pushed the 2015_06_softforkinfo branch from f168e66 to 5ed1079 Compare July 1, 2015 17:36
@laanwj laanwj merged commit 5ed1079 into bitcoin:master Jul 1, 2015
laanwj added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 1, 2015
@laanwj
Merge pull request #6353
6bcb0a2 
5ed1079 Show softfork status in getblockchaininfo (Wladimir J. van der Laan)
@paveljanik paveljanik mentioned this pull request Jul 19, 2015
Merged
jonasschnelli
jonasschnelli reviewed Jul 20, 2015
View reviewed changes
src/rpcblockchain.cpp
Copy link
Contributor

@jonasschnelli jonasschnelli Jul 20, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Now we have the soft fork states between pruned and prunehight which looks a bit sandwiched.

@Sporklin Sporklin mentioned this pull request Mar 29, 2016
Merged
@bitcoin bitcoin locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 16, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

RPC/REST/ZMQ

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants

@laanwj @btcdrak @petertodd @jtimon @CodeShark @fanquake @jonasschnelli