Merge #15948: refactor: rename chainActive

486c1eea86 refactoring: remove unused chainActive (James O'Beirne)
631940aab2 scripted-diff: replace chainActive -> ::ChainActive() (James O'Beirne)
a3a609079c refactoring: introduce unused ChainActive() (James O'Beirne)
1b6e6fcfd2 rename: CChainState.chainActive -> m_chain (James O'Beirne)

Pull request description:

  This is part of the assumeutxo project:

  Parent PR: #15606
  Issue: #15605
  Specification: https://github.com/jamesob/assumeutxo-docs/tree/2019-04-proposal/proposal

  ---

  This change refactors the `chainActive` reference into a `::ChainActive()` call. It also distinguishes `CChainState`'s `CChain` data member as `m_chain` instead of the current `chainActive`, which makes it easily confused with the global data.

  The active chain must be obtained via function because its reference will be swapped at some point during runtime after loading a UTXO snapshot.

  This change, though lengthy, should be pretty easy to review since most of it is contained within a scripted-diff. Once merged, the parent PR should be easier to review.

ACKs for commit 486c1e:
  Sjors:
    utACK 486c1ee
  promag:
    utACK 486c1ee.
  practicalswift:
    utACK 486c1eea863a41e597ae4fddc392f446f2518b4b

Tree-SHA512: 06ed8f9e77f2d25fc9bea0ba86436d80dbbce90a1e8be23e37ec4eeb26060483e60b4a5c4fba679cb1867f61e3921c24abeb9cabdfb4d0a9b1c4ddd77b17456a

1 files changed, 5 insertions, 5 deletions

diff --git a/src/test/txvalidationcache_tests.cpp b/src/test/txvalidationcache_tests.cpp
index 01018043b..1077a3eaa 100644
--- a/src/test/txvalidationcache_tests.cpp
+++ b/src/test/txvalidationcache_tests.cpp
@@ -66,18 +66,18 @@ BOOST_FIXTURE_TEST_CASE(tx_mempool_block_doublespend, TestChain100Setup)
 
     // Test 1: block with both of those transactions should be rejected.
     block = CreateAndProcessBlock(spends, scriptPubKey);
-    BOOST_CHECK(chainActive.Tip()->GetBlockHash() != block.GetHash());
+    BOOST_CHECK(::ChainActive().Tip()->GetBlockHash() != block.GetHash());
 
     // Test 2: ... and should be rejected if spend1 is in the memory pool
     BOOST_CHECK(ToMemPool(spends[0]));
     block = CreateAndProcessBlock(spends, scriptPubKey);
-    BOOST_CHECK(chainActive.Tip()->GetBlockHash() != block.GetHash());
+    BOOST_CHECK(::ChainActive().Tip()->GetBlockHash() != block.GetHash());
     mempool.clear();
 
     // Test 3: ... and should be rejected if spend2 is in the memory pool
     BOOST_CHECK(ToMemPool(spends[1]));
     block = CreateAndProcessBlock(spends, scriptPubKey);
-    BOOST_CHECK(chainActive.Tip()->GetBlockHash() != block.GetHash());
+    BOOST_CHECK(::ChainActive().Tip()->GetBlockHash() != block.GetHash());
     mempool.clear();
 
     // Final sanity test: first spend in mempool, second in block, that's OK:
@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ BOOST_FIXTURE_TEST_CASE(tx_mempool_block_doublespend, TestChain100Setup)
     oneSpend.push_back(spends[0]);
     BOOST_CHECK(ToMemPool(spends[1]));
     block = CreateAndProcessBlock(oneSpend, scriptPubKey);
-    BOOST_CHECK(chainActive.Tip()->GetBlockHash() == block.GetHash());
+    BOOST_CHECK(::ChainActive().Tip()->GetBlockHash() == block.GetHash());
     // spends[1] should have been removed from the mempool when the
     // block with spends[0] is accepted:
     BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(mempool.size(), 0U);
@@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ BOOST_FIXTURE_TEST_CASE(checkinputs_test, TestChain100Setup)
 
     block = CreateAndProcessBlock({spend_tx}, p2pk_scriptPubKey);
     LOCK(cs_main);
-    BOOST_CHECK(chainActive.Tip()->GetBlockHash() == block.GetHash());
+    BOOST_CHECK(::ChainActive().Tip()->GetBlockHash() == block.GetHash());
     BOOST_CHECK(pcoinsTip->GetBestBlock() == block.GetHash());
 
     // Test P2SH: construct a transaction that is valid without P2SH, and