Bugfix: Address broken things around Peers detail view #677

1. 
   luke-jr commented at 10:06 pm on November 4, 2022: member

   • Ensure data for previously-selected peer doesn’t remain when a new peer is selected (reset all fields to N/A before loading data for a new peer)
   • Load user-agent along with peer version (so a blank UA actually shows as blank)
   • Display actually having no permissions as “None” rather than “N/A”
2. net: Ensure CNode.cleanSubVer is always assigned before nVersion df874f848a
3. Bugfix: GUI: Peers: If subversion is actually blank, show blank 238f042ff2
4. Bugfix: GUI: Peers: When selecting a new peer, reset fields to N/A before loading data

   Without this, !fNodeStateStatsAvailable will leave fields with the data of the previously selected peer

   35fbd4886e
5. Bugfix: GUI: Peers: Peers without any permissions are "None", not "N/A" cfe5bbe6cc
6. 
   jonatack commented at 11:15 pm on November 4, 2022: member

   Concept ACK. This also cleanly implements #673 (review).
7. in src/net_processing.cpp:3227 in cfe5bbe6cc

   3223@@ -3224,6 +3224,10 @@ void PeerManagerImpl::ProcessMessage(CNode& pfrom, const std::string& msg_type,
   3224         // Change version
   3225         const int greatest_common_version = std::min(nVersion, PROTOCOL_VERSION);
   3226         pfrom.SetCommonVersion(greatest_common_version);
   3227+        {
   

   ---

   ---

   

   jarolrod commented at 9:41 pm on November 10, 2022:

   we really shouldn’t have this change being performed from this repo :)

   ---

   

   hebasto commented at 5:41 pm on December 6, 2022:

   ping @luke-jr

   ---

   

   luke-jr commented at 11:25 pm on December 6, 2022:

   @hebasto ping seen. nothing to do here though.

   ---

   

   hebasto commented at 1:35 pm on March 27, 2023:

   ping seen. nothing to do here though.

   This PR modifies src/net_processing.cpp, and we review such changes in the main repo, generally.

   Mind moving this PR or the first commit from this repo into the main one?

   ---

   

   luke-jr commented at 11:11 pm on June 29, 2023:

   Doesn’t seem worth splitting up such a minor change IMO
8. 
   jarolrod commented at 9:41 pm on November 10, 2022: member

   Concept ACK
9. 
   DrahtBot commented at 5:04 am on December 6, 2022: contributor

   The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

   Reviews

   See the guideline for information on the review process.

   Type	Reviewers
   Concept ACK	jonatack, jarolrod
   Approach ACK	pablomartin4btc

   If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.

   Conflicts

   No conflicts as of last run.

10. hebasto added the label UX on Dec 6, 2022
11. DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Aug 18, 2023
12. DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Aug 22, 2023
13. DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Aug 31, 2023
14. DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Sep 4, 2023
15. 
    pablomartin4btc commented at 11:59 pm on October 7, 2023: contributor

    Approach ACK
16. DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Oct 13, 2023
17. DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Oct 18, 2023
18. DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Oct 25, 2023
19. 
    DrahtBot commented at 2:28 pm on February 5, 2024: contributor

    🤔 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.

20. 
    hebasto commented at 1:21 pm on February 12, 2024: member

    Why the first commit “net: Ensure CNode.cleanSubVer is always assigned before nVersion” is needed?
21. 
    DrahtBot commented at 9:19 am on May 13, 2024: contributor

    🤔 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.

22. 
    DrahtBot commented at 1:13 am on August 11, 2024: contributor

    🤔 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.

23. 
    DrahtBot commented at 1:36 am on November 9, 2024: contributor

    🤔 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.

Contributors
luke-jr jonatack jarolrod hebasto DrahtBot pablomartin4btc

Labels
UX CI failed