perf: versionbits avoid calculation which is not used by knst · Pull Request #6632 · dashpay/dash

knst · 2025-04-15T13:31:22Z

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

It seems as there's O(N^2) for some certain situations when calling invalidateblock.

See perf result during adding / removing blocks to chain:

What was done?

Call calculateStartHeight only if its result is going to be used.

How Has This Been Tested?

$ getblockcount
2255311
$ getblockhash 2250000
00000000000000062539a6cd3adece4a10598e729ef571bfded9d4b704af69f0
$ invalidateblock 00000000000000062539a6cd3adece4a10598e729ef571bfded9d4b704af69f0
null

With changes in PR it takes 1minute, without them - 3 minutes.

Mainnet re-indexed with no issues.

Breaking Changes

N/A

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)

coderabbitai · 2025-04-15T13:33:19Z

Walkthrough

The change modifies the AbstractThresholdConditionChecker::GetStateFor function in src/versionbits.cpp. An early return was added to immediately return the cached state if the vector vToCompute is empty. This prevents the subsequent call to calculateStartHeight and the forward state computation loop from executing when there are no blocks to process. The rest of the method's logic and control flow remain unchanged. There are no changes to public or exported entity declarations.

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 58cf5cd and b622989.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

src/versionbits.cpp (1 hunks)

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

src/versionbits.cpp

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (5)

GitHub Check: win64-build / Build source
GitHub Check: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu_nowallet / Build depends
GitHub Check: x86_64-apple-darwin / Build depends
GitHub Check: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu_multiprocess / Build depends
GitHub Check: arm-linux-gnueabihf / Build depends

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

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
- I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
- Generate unit testing code for this file.
- Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
- @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
- @coderabbitai modularize this function.
PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
- @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
- @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
- @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
- @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

@coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
@coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
@coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
@coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
@coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
@coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
@coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
@coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
@coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (`.coderabbit.yaml`)

You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Result of `calculateStartHeight` is not always used but it's always calculated

UdjinM6

light ACK b622989

PastaPastaPasta

utACK b622989

2f74b8d perf: reuse result of BuildNewListFromBlock (Konstantin Akimov) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented Method `BuildNewListFromBlock` is called twice for each block during validation. These calculation are pretty heavy assuming that there's thousands of masternodes. It is not much for 1 block but that's a lot of CPU calculations during full re-index or initial indexation for 2M of blocks. ## What was done? Methods `CalcCbTxMerkleRootMNList` and `CDeterministicMNManager::ProcessBlock` during block calculation re-use same pre-calculated SML instead internal re-calculation. ## How Has This Been Tested? Benchmarks are done on branch including this changes: #6632 ``` $ getblockcount 2256425 $ getblockhash 2250000 00000000000000062539a6cd3adece4a10598e729ef571bfded9d4b704af69f0 $ debug bench $ invalidateblock 00000000000000062539a6cd3adece4a10598e729ef571bfded9d4b704af69f0 null $ reconsiderblock 00000000000000062539a6cd3adece4a10598e729ef571bfded9d4b704af69f0 ``` I run it several times in different days and results are differ, but it is consistently faster. There's logs for 3 different runs, see sum of `m_dmnman` and `CheckCbTxMerkleRoots`. Run time for ~5000blocks: ``` <PR+patches> 2025-04-16T19:31:08Z [bench] - m_dmnman: 1.16ms [5.80s] <--- 2025-04-16T19:31:08Z [bench] - GetTxPayload: 0.22ms [1.38s] 2025-04-16T19:31:08Z [bench] - CalcCbTxMerkleRootMNList: 0.22ms [1.77s] 2025-04-16T19:31:08Z [bench] - CachedGetQcHashesQcIndexedHashes: 0.65ms [5.90s] 2025-04-16T19:31:08Z [bench] - Loop: 0.01ms [0.72s] 2025-04-16T19:31:08Z [bench] - ComputeMerkleRoot: 0.05ms [0.31s] 2025-04-16T19:31:08Z [bench] - CalcCbTxMerkleRootQuorums: 0.73ms [7.01s] 2025-04-16T19:31:08Z [bench] - CheckCbTxMerkleRoots: 2.39ms [16.84s] <--- 2025-04-16T19:31:08Z [bench] - Connect block: 10.88ms [105.65s (17.59ms/blk)] <develop+patches> 2025-04-16T20:02:37Z [bench] - m_dmnman: 1.12ms [6.38s] <--- 2025-04-16T20:02:37Z [bench] - GetTxPayload: 0.20ms [1.40s] 2025-04-16T20:02:37Z [bench] - BuildNewListFromBlock: 0.33ms [2.97s] 2025-04-16T20:02:37Z [bench] - CSimplifiedMNList: 1.08ms [6.56s] 2025-04-16T20:02:37Z [bench] - CalcCbTxMerkleRootMNList: 1.79ms [11.86s] 2025-04-16T20:02:37Z [bench] - CachedGetQcHashesQcIndexedHashes: 0.71ms [6.02s] 2025-04-16T20:02:37Z [bench] - Loop: 0.02ms [0.74s] 2025-04-16T20:02:37Z [bench] - ComputeMerkleRoot: 0.05ms [0.30s] 2025-04-16T20:02:37Z [bench] - CalcCbTxMerkleRootQuorums: 0.80ms [7.14s] 2025-04-16T20:02:37Z [bench] - CheckCbTxMerkleRoots: 2.80ms [20.46s] <--- 2025-04-16T20:02:37Z [bench] - Connect block: 7.35ms [111.00s (18.45ms/blk)] ``` Run time for 6000 blocks: ``` <PR+patches> - m_dmnman: 2.54ms [6.81s] <--- - GetTxPayload: 0.21ms [1.52s] - CalcCbTxMerkleRootMNList: 0.75ms [2.66s] - CachedGetQcHashesQcIndexedHashes: 1.09ms [7.06s] - Loop: 0.02ms [0.73s] - ComputeMerkleRoot: 0.05ms [0.30s] - CalcCbTxMerkleRootQuorums: 1.18ms [8.10s] - CheckCbTxMerkleRoots: 4.54ms [21.03s] <--- ... - Connect block: 14.29ms [113.38s (17.61ms/blk)] <develop+patches> - m_dmnman: 2.17ms [6.64s] <--- - GetTxPayload: 0.24ms [1.45s] - BuildNewListFromBlock: 0.61ms [3.05s] - CSimplifiedMNList: 2.78ms [7.95s] - CalcCbTxMerkleRootMNList: 3.87ms [13.83s] - CachedGetQcHashesQcIndexedHashes: 0.69ms [6.80s] - Loop: 0.02ms [0.71s] - ComputeMerkleRoot: 0.05ms [0.29s] - CalcCbTxMerkleRootQuorums: 0.76ms [7.81s] - CheckCbTxMerkleRoots: 4.89ms [23.09s] <--- ... - Connect block: 16.90ms [114.69s (17.80ms/blk)] ``` Run time for 9000 blocks: ``` <PR+patches> - m_dmnman: 1.96ms [10.34s] <--- - GetTxPayload: 0.23ms [1.98s] - CalcCbTxMerkleRootMNList: 0.41ms [3.75s] - CachedGetQcHashesQcIndexedHashes: 0.81ms [10.01s] - Loop: 0.02ms [0.96s] - ComputeMerkleRoot: 0.04ms [0.40s] - CalcCbTxMerkleRootQuorums: 0.89ms [11.39s] - CheckCbTxMerkleRoots: 3.48ms [30.06s] <--- ... - Connect block: 15.21ms [152.76s (18.04ms/blk)] <develop+patches> - m_dmnman: 2.04ms [11.14s] <--- - GetTxPayload: 0.20ms [2.00s] - BuildNewListFromBlock: 1.09ms [4.23s] - CSimplifiedMNList: 3.08ms [13.82s] - CalcCbTxMerkleRootMNList: 4.88ms [24.59s] - CachedGetQcHashesQcIndexedHashes: 0.87ms [10.22s] - Loop: 0.01ms [0.93s] - ComputeMerkleRoot: 0.05ms [0.39s] - CalcCbTxMerkleRootQuorums: 0.94ms [11.56s] - CheckCbTxMerkleRoots: 6.03ms [38.16s] <--- ... - Connect block: 24.45ms [157.15s (18.55ms/blk)] ``` ## Breaking Changes N/A ## Checklist: - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] 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: UdjinM6: light ACK 2f74b8d PastaPastaPasta: utACK 2f74b8d Tree-SHA512: 61a69501ff096bfdc903abd0ca79a6aeb98b6e71ddde5773639914586232c869d1588471c7232ee10753f2a8bd044668928ce0272dfc569646412525e12cae48

…used b622989 perf: optimize version bit calculation (Konstantin Akimov) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented It seems as there's O(N^2) for some certain situations when calling `invalidateblock`. See perf result during adding / removing blocks to chain: <img width="687" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/472e019e-905b-49b6-9786-aa7343eb5724" /> ## What was done? Call `calculateStartHeight` only if its result is going to be used. ## How Has This Been Tested? ``` $ getblockcount 2255311 $ getblockhash 2250000 00000000000000062539a6cd3adece4a10598e729ef571bfded9d4b704af69f0 $ invalidateblock 00000000000000062539a6cd3adece4a10598e729ef571bfded9d4b704af69f0 null ``` With changes in PR it takes 1minute, without them - 3 minutes. <img width="687" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/967cb943-429d-405d-8aa2-cb192e0d8317" /> Mainnet re-indexed with no issues. ## 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 _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_ ACKs for top commit: UdjinM6: light ACK b622989 PastaPastaPasta: utACK b622989 Tree-SHA512: a165b96f8f1a1e2efa64e223639822c9690c0cfbc3c185925826b62ef9a2e92adb4e5913f6c904363fe2ef19e384674d4ab16f082c2a4b9c574ec4ea63747ce9

9ec8e66 docs: add v22.1.3 release notes and archive v22.1.2 (pasta) 95c2a0e chore: bump version to v22.1.3 (pasta) 3345046 chore: update chainparams for v22.1.3 release (pasta) 1db850a Merge #6632: perf: versionbits avoid calculation which is not used (pasta) 4173e3c Merge #6739: docs: Fix broken links from translation instructions and a typo (pasta) 9eda785 Merge #6740: feat: improve logging of non-existing destinations for masternode payment (pasta) 47b6826 Merge #6744: fix: remove useless but alarming log record about spent information (pasta) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented Backports for a new version, v22.1.3 ## What was done? See release notes ## How Has This Been Tested? ## Breaking Changes None ## 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 _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_ ACKs for top commit: UdjinM6: utACK 9ec8e66 kwvg: utACK 9ec8e66 Tree-SHA512: 9e94b472c32f87c46d60fe53bcec59cb2ec1823e56cfbc2fe4a07d476e1c576c0d7f0c54115aeca902767651591556d68c8e81b81ac9bd12bc5291fa17f5a768

9ec8e66 docs: add v22.1.3 release notes and archive v22.1.2 (pasta) 95c2a0e chore: bump version to v22.1.3 (pasta) 3345046 chore: update chainparams for v22.1.3 release (pasta) 1db850a Merge #6632: perf: versionbits avoid calculation which is not used (pasta) 4173e3c Merge #6739: docs: Fix broken links from translation instructions and a typo (pasta) 9eda785 Merge #6740: feat: improve logging of non-existing destinations for masternode payment (pasta) 47b6826 Merge #6744: fix: remove useless but alarming log record about spent information (pasta) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented ## What was done? ## How Has This Been Tested? ## Breaking Changes n/a ## 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 2527ca5 kwvg: utACK 2527ca5 Tree-SHA512: 3ecf4f26a816db6be797208ce5d519b8c3571a4aae832d8a1dcf41add4cc48d102459302e1777786b19f577c0a3222d77ce490e2301e73963d6021e2cdc2ad86

2f74b8d perf: reuse result of BuildNewListFromBlock (Konstantin Akimov) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented Method `BuildNewListFromBlock` is called twice for each block during validation. These calculation are pretty heavy assuming that there's thousands of masternodes. It is not much for 1 block but that's a lot of CPU calculations during full re-index or initial indexation for 2M of blocks. ## What was done? Methods `CalcCbTxMerkleRootMNList` and `CDeterministicMNManager::ProcessBlock` during block calculation re-use same pre-calculated SML instead internal re-calculation. ## How Has This Been Tested? Benchmarks are done on branch including this changes: dashpay#6632 ``` $ getblockcount 2256425 $ getblockhash 2250000 00000000000000062539a6cd3adece4a10598e729ef571bfded9d4b704af69f0 $ debug bench $ invalidateblock 00000000000000062539a6cd3adece4a10598e729ef571bfded9d4b704af69f0 null $ reconsiderblock 00000000000000062539a6cd3adece4a10598e729ef571bfded9d4b704af69f0 ``` I run it several times in different days and results are differ, but it is consistently faster. There's logs for 3 different runs, see sum of `m_dmnman` and `CheckCbTxMerkleRoots`. Run time for ~5000blocks: ``` <PR+patches> 2025-04-16T19:31:08Z [bench] - m_dmnman: 1.16ms [5.80s] <--- 2025-04-16T19:31:08Z [bench] - GetTxPayload: 0.22ms [1.38s] 2025-04-16T19:31:08Z [bench] - CalcCbTxMerkleRootMNList: 0.22ms [1.77s] 2025-04-16T19:31:08Z [bench] - CachedGetQcHashesQcIndexedHashes: 0.65ms [5.90s] 2025-04-16T19:31:08Z [bench] - Loop: 0.01ms [0.72s] 2025-04-16T19:31:08Z [bench] - ComputeMerkleRoot: 0.05ms [0.31s] 2025-04-16T19:31:08Z [bench] - CalcCbTxMerkleRootQuorums: 0.73ms [7.01s] 2025-04-16T19:31:08Z [bench] - CheckCbTxMerkleRoots: 2.39ms [16.84s] <--- 2025-04-16T19:31:08Z [bench] - Connect block: 10.88ms [105.65s (17.59ms/blk)] <develop+patches> 2025-04-16T20:02:37Z [bench] - m_dmnman: 1.12ms [6.38s] <--- 2025-04-16T20:02:37Z [bench] - GetTxPayload: 0.20ms [1.40s] 2025-04-16T20:02:37Z [bench] - BuildNewListFromBlock: 0.33ms [2.97s] 2025-04-16T20:02:37Z [bench] - CSimplifiedMNList: 1.08ms [6.56s] 2025-04-16T20:02:37Z [bench] - CalcCbTxMerkleRootMNList: 1.79ms [11.86s] 2025-04-16T20:02:37Z [bench] - CachedGetQcHashesQcIndexedHashes: 0.71ms [6.02s] 2025-04-16T20:02:37Z [bench] - Loop: 0.02ms [0.74s] 2025-04-16T20:02:37Z [bench] - ComputeMerkleRoot: 0.05ms [0.30s] 2025-04-16T20:02:37Z [bench] - CalcCbTxMerkleRootQuorums: 0.80ms [7.14s] 2025-04-16T20:02:37Z [bench] - CheckCbTxMerkleRoots: 2.80ms [20.46s] <--- 2025-04-16T20:02:37Z [bench] - Connect block: 7.35ms [111.00s (18.45ms/blk)] ``` Run time for 6000 blocks: ``` <PR+patches> - m_dmnman: 2.54ms [6.81s] <--- - GetTxPayload: 0.21ms [1.52s] - CalcCbTxMerkleRootMNList: 0.75ms [2.66s] - CachedGetQcHashesQcIndexedHashes: 1.09ms [7.06s] - Loop: 0.02ms [0.73s] - ComputeMerkleRoot: 0.05ms [0.30s] - CalcCbTxMerkleRootQuorums: 1.18ms [8.10s] - CheckCbTxMerkleRoots: 4.54ms [21.03s] <--- ... - Connect block: 14.29ms [113.38s (17.61ms/blk)] <develop+patches> - m_dmnman: 2.17ms [6.64s] <--- - GetTxPayload: 0.24ms [1.45s] - BuildNewListFromBlock: 0.61ms [3.05s] - CSimplifiedMNList: 2.78ms [7.95s] - CalcCbTxMerkleRootMNList: 3.87ms [13.83s] - CachedGetQcHashesQcIndexedHashes: 0.69ms [6.80s] - Loop: 0.02ms [0.71s] - ComputeMerkleRoot: 0.05ms [0.29s] - CalcCbTxMerkleRootQuorums: 0.76ms [7.81s] - CheckCbTxMerkleRoots: 4.89ms [23.09s] <--- ... - Connect block: 16.90ms [114.69s (17.80ms/blk)] ``` Run time for 9000 blocks: ``` <PR+patches> - m_dmnman: 1.96ms [10.34s] <--- - GetTxPayload: 0.23ms [1.98s] - CalcCbTxMerkleRootMNList: 0.41ms [3.75s] - CachedGetQcHashesQcIndexedHashes: 0.81ms [10.01s] - Loop: 0.02ms [0.96s] - ComputeMerkleRoot: 0.04ms [0.40s] - CalcCbTxMerkleRootQuorums: 0.89ms [11.39s] - CheckCbTxMerkleRoots: 3.48ms [30.06s] <--- ... - Connect block: 15.21ms [152.76s (18.04ms/blk)] <develop+patches> - m_dmnman: 2.04ms [11.14s] <--- - GetTxPayload: 0.20ms [2.00s] - BuildNewListFromBlock: 1.09ms [4.23s] - CSimplifiedMNList: 3.08ms [13.82s] - CalcCbTxMerkleRootMNList: 4.88ms [24.59s] - CachedGetQcHashesQcIndexedHashes: 0.87ms [10.22s] - Loop: 0.01ms [0.93s] - ComputeMerkleRoot: 0.05ms [0.39s] - CalcCbTxMerkleRootQuorums: 0.94ms [11.56s] - CheckCbTxMerkleRoots: 6.03ms [38.16s] <--- ... - Connect block: 24.45ms [157.15s (18.55ms/blk)] ``` ## Breaking Changes N/A ## Checklist: - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] 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: UdjinM6: light ACK 2f74b8d PastaPastaPasta: utACK 2f74b8d Tree-SHA512: 61a69501ff096bfdc903abd0ca79a6aeb98b6e71ddde5773639914586232c869d1588471c7232ee10753f2a8bd044668928ce0272dfc569646412525e12cae48

knst changed the title ~~Perf versionbits~~ perf: versionbits avoid calculation which is not used Apr 15, 2025

knst force-pushed the perf-versionbits branch from 11cf3f0 to 58cf5cd Compare April 16, 2025 05:40

knst added this to the 23 milestone Apr 16, 2025

knst added the backport-candidate-22.1.x label Apr 16, 2025

knst requested review from PastaPastaPasta and UdjinM6 April 17, 2025 05:27

knst mentioned this pull request Apr 21, 2025

perf: reuse result of BuildNewListFromBlock #6640

Merged

5 tasks

UdjinM6 reviewed Apr 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/versionbits.cpp Outdated

perf: optimize version bit calculation

b622989

Result of `calculateStartHeight` is not always used but it's always calculated

knst force-pushed the perf-versionbits branch from 58cf5cd to b622989 Compare April 22, 2025 09:59

knst requested a review from UdjinM6 April 22, 2025 09:59

UdjinM6 approved these changes Apr 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

PastaPastaPasta approved these changes Apr 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

PastaPastaPasta merged commit d408337 into dashpay:develop Apr 28, 2025
54 of 58 checks passed

knst deleted the perf-versionbits branch July 7, 2025 11:53

UdjinM6 modified the milestones: 23, 22.1.3 Jul 9, 2025

UdjinM6 removed the backport-candidate-22.1.x label Jul 13, 2025

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

perf: versionbits avoid calculation which is not used#6632

perf: versionbits avoid calculation which is not used#6632
PastaPastaPasta merged 1 commit into
dashpay:developfrom
knst:perf-versionbits

knst commented Apr 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Apr 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Chat

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

Other keywords and placeholders

CodeRabbit Configuration File (`.coderabbit.yaml`)

Documentation and Community

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

UdjinM6 left a comment

Uh oh!

PastaPastaPasta left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Conversation

knst commented Apr 15, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

What was done?

How Has This Been Tested?

Breaking Changes

Checklist:

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Apr 15, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Walkthrough

Chat

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

Other keywords and placeholders

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

Documentation and Community

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

UdjinM6 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

PastaPastaPasta left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

knst commented Apr 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

coderabbitai Bot commented Apr 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

CodeRabbit Configuration File (`.coderabbit.yaml`)