…rom tests and benchmarks.

8db0c3d Removed implicit CTransaction conversion from benchmaks (lucash-dev)
ed61abe Removed implicit CTransaction constructor from tests (lucash-dev)

Pull request description:

  This PR was split from #14906 and is a prerequisite for it.
  It updates tests and benchmarks, removing all implicit calls to `CTransaction(CMutableTransaction&)` constructors. This will make possible making the constructor explicit in the next PR.
  The original rationale for making the constructor explicit:

   - Conversion constructors should not be explicit unless there's a strong reason for it (in the opinion of, for example, https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html, and https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines#Ro-conversion. Let me know your take on this).
   - This particular conversion is very costly -- it implies a serialization plus hash of the transaction.
   - Even though `CTransaction` and `CMutableTransaction` represent the same data, they have very different use cases and performance properties.
   - Making it explicit allows for easier reasoning of performance trade-offs.
   - There has been previous performance issues caused by unneeded use of this implicit conversion.
   - This PR creates a map for places to look for possible refactoring and performance gains (this benefit still holds if the PR is not merged).

Tree-SHA512: de8073aa6ff8a3153bcbe10818616677ecf9598e4978d8a0b4c39a262e71c36be5679cec08554c760d1f011ba6d37350318248eef15f6d9b86f9e4462b2de0d2

…tion conversion.

b301950  Made expicit constructor CTransaction(const CMutableTransaction &tx). (lucash-dev)
faf29dd  Minimal changes to comply with explicit CMutableTransaction -> CTranaction conversion. (lucash-dev)

Pull request description:

  This PR is re-submission of #14156, which was automatically closed by github (glitch?)

  Original description:

  This PR makes explicit the now implicit conversion constructor `CTransaction(const CMutableTransaction&)` in `transaction.h`.
  Minimal changes were made elsewhere to make the code compilable. I'll follow up with other PRs to address individually refactoring functions that should have a `CMutableTransaction` version, or where a `CTransaction` should be reused.

  The rationale for this change is:

   - Conversion constructors should not be explicit unless there's a strong reason for it (in the opinion of, for example, https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html, and https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines#Ro-conversion. Let me know your take on this).
   - This particular conversion is very costly -- it implies a serialization plus hash of the transaction.
   - Even though `CTransaction` and `CMutableTransaction` represent the same data, they have very different use cases and performance properties.
   - Making it explicit allows for easier reasoning of performance trade-offs.
   - There has been previous performance issues caused by unneeded use of this implicit conversion.
   - This PR creates a map for places to look for possible refactoring and performance gains (this benefit still holds if the PR is not merged).

Tree-SHA512: 2427462e7211b5ffc7299dae17339d27f8c43266e0895690fda49a83c72751bd2489d4471b3993075a18f3fef25d741243e5010b2f49aeef4a9688b30b6d0631

…n improve performance.

Reference: bitcoin#14906

…saction conversion.

Summary:
This PR is re-submission of #14156, which was automatically closed by github (glitch?)

Original description:

This PR makes explicit the now implicit conversion constructor CTransaction(const CMutableTransaction&) in transaction.h.
Minimal changes were made elsewhere to make the code compilable. I'll follow up with other PRs to address individually refactoring functions that should have a CMutableTransaction version, or where a CTransaction should be reused.

The rationale for this change is:

Conversion constructors should not be explicit unless there's a strong reason for it (in the opinion of, for example, https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html, and https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines#Ro-conversion. Let me know your take on this).
This particular conversion is very costly -- it implies a serialization plus hash of the transaction.
Even though CTransaction and CMutableTransaction represent the same data, they have very different use cases and performance properties.
Making it explicit allows for easier reasoning of performance trade-offs.
There has been previous performance issues caused by unneeded use of this implicit conversion.
This PR creates a map for places to look for possible refactoring and performance gains (this benefit still holds if the PR is not merged).

---

Depends on D6072

This is a backport of Core [[bitcoin/bitcoin#14906 | PR14906]]

Test Plan:
  ninja check-all

Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, nakihito

Reviewed By: nakihito

Subscribers: nakihito

Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D6073

…n conversion

merge bitcoin bitcoin#13013, bitcoin#14908, bitcoin#14906: Make explicit CMutableTransaction -> CTransaction conversion

…n conversion