MOVEONLY: Move non-consensus functions out of pow #7311

1. 
   jtimon commented at 4:52 pm on January 7, 2016: contributor

   Move this two non-consensus functions out of pow.o (which will become part of the consensus building module/package, see #7091 ):

   • GetBlockProof
   • GetBlockProofEquivalentTime
2. jtimon renamed this:
   MOVEONLY: non-consensus: from pow to chain:
   MOVEONLY: Move non-consensus functions out of pow
   on Jan 7, 2016
3. 
   dcousens commented at 1:15 am on January 8, 2016: contributor

   utACK ff97050
4. 
   paveljanik commented at 7:03 am on January 8, 2016: contributor

   We test these functions in test/pow_tests.cpp. OK to keep them there?

   ACK

5. 
   jonasschnelli commented at 8:11 am on January 8, 2016: contributor

   ACK Can confirm as move-only (ff97050913206522b22ef80d4241b82a8aba27f0).
6. jonasschnelli added the label Refactoring on Jan 8, 2016
7. 
   MarcoFalke commented at 9:43 am on January 8, 2016: member

   utACK ff97050
8. 
   jtimon commented at 9:59 am on January 8, 2016: contributor

   @paveljanik I’m focusing on putting all the code in the consensus building package first and we can take care of the tests when the C API is complete and we separate libconsensus to its own repository like libsecp256k1. So, yes, we should separate the tests at some point, but I’ll leave that of the scope of this PR for now.
9. 
   jtimon commented at 10:03 am on January 8, 2016: contributor

   Added a “squashme” commit with @paveljanik ’s nit.
10. 
    dcousens commented at 11:17 am on January 10, 2016: contributor

    re-ACK @ 270b60e
11. 
    MarcoFalke commented at 1:50 pm on January 10, 2016: member

    utACK 270b60e
12. 
    instagibbs commented at 4:12 pm on January 11, 2016: member

    utACK 270b60e97ee2c2d18de97875069307714fe79d07

    Confirmed move-only.

13. 
    jtimon commented at 6:11 pm on January 11, 2016: contributor

    @laanwj should I squash already?
14. MOVEONLY: non-consensus: from pow to chain:

    - GetBlockProof
    - GetBlockProofEquivalentTime

    e86756193e
15. jtimon force-pushed on Jan 12, 2016
16. 
    MarcoFalke commented at 7:30 pm on January 14, 2016: member

    re-ACK e867561 (rebase of 270b60e )
17. 
    dcousens commented at 0:16 am on January 15, 2016: contributor

    reACK e867561
18. 
    jtimon commented at 3:46 pm on January 28, 2016: contributor

    @laanwj anything holding this?
19. 
    sipa commented at 1:08 pm on February 2, 2016: member

    utACK
20. 
    laanwj commented at 1:16 pm on February 2, 2016: member

    utACK e867561
21. laanwj merged this on Feb 2, 2016
22. laanwj closed this on Feb 2, 2016

    ---

23. laanwj referenced this in commit 47ac04e8b1 on Feb 2, 2016
24. codablock referenced this in commit be2d21b32f on Sep 16, 2017
25. codablock referenced this in commit c5fc2dba0c on Sep 19, 2017
26. codablock referenced this in commit e52bd038ea on Dec 9, 2017
27. codablock referenced this in commit 3448bc734f on Dec 9, 2017
28. codablock referenced this in commit a65f7b7a76 on Dec 11, 2017
29. MarcoFalke locked this on Sep 8, 2021

Contributors
jtimon dcousens paveljanik jonasschnelli MarcoFalke instagibbs sipa laanwj

Labels
Refactoring