💬 vasild commented on pull request "config: allow setting -proxy per network":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32425#issuecomment-2962235283)
> Needs release note?
Right. Done in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32727
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32425#issuecomment-2962235283)
> Needs release note?
Right. Done in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32727
✅ scott-weeden closed a pull request: "Add initial OpenAPI/Swagger specification for Bitcoin Core RPC and REST interfaces (issue #29912)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32726)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32726)
📝 scott-weeden reopened a pull request: "Add initial OpenAPI/Swagger specification for Bitcoin Core RPC and REST interfaces (issue #29912)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32726)
## Motivation
Currently, (almost) all clients manually implement the Bitcoin Core RPC API, which leads to:
- Accidental implementation bugs (e.g., unit mistakes such as vB vs BTC/kvB)
- Difficulty maintaining clients as the API evolves
- Increased effort to implement clients in new programming languages
There is no formal, machine-readable specification of the RPC API. Existing documentation is not sufficient for code generation or type-safe client implementations. See discussion in #
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32726)
## Motivation
Currently, (almost) all clients manually implement the Bitcoin Core RPC API, which leads to:
- Accidental implementation bugs (e.g., unit mistakes such as vB vs BTC/kvB)
- Difficulty maintaining clients as the API evolves
- Increased effort to implement clients in new programming languages
There is no formal, machine-readable specification of the RPC API. Existing documentation is not sufficient for code generation or type-safe client implementations. See discussion in #
...
✅ scott-weeden closed a pull request: "Add initial OpenAPI/Swagger specification for Bitcoin Core RPC and REST interfaces (issue #29912)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32726)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32726)
💬 vasild commented on pull request "config: allow setting -proxy per network":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32425#discussion_r2139847689)
What about this:
```diff
diff --git a/src/init.cpp b/src/init.cpp
index 77dc74f690..08ec964e25 100644
--- a/src/init.cpp
+++ b/src/init.cpp
@@ -1190,14 +1190,20 @@ bool CheckHostPortOptions(const ArgsManager& args) {
{"-zmqpubhashtx", true, false},
{"-zmqpubrawblock", true, false},
{"-zmqpubrawtx", true, false},
{"-zmqpubsequence", true, false},
}) {
for (const std
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32425#discussion_r2139847689)
What about this:
```diff
diff --git a/src/init.cpp b/src/init.cpp
index 77dc74f690..08ec964e25 100644
--- a/src/init.cpp
+++ b/src/init.cpp
@@ -1190,14 +1190,20 @@ bool CheckHostPortOptions(const ArgsManager& args) {
{"-zmqpubhashtx", true, false},
{"-zmqpubrawblock", true, false},
{"-zmqpubrawtx", true, false},
{"-zmqpubsequence", true, false},
}) {
for (const std
...
📝 ismaelsadeeq reopened a pull request: "init: make `-blockmaxweight` startup option debug only"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32654)
This PR updates `-blockmaxweight` startup option to be debug-only so that it will be hidden from help text.
The option is currently unlikely to be used on mainnet, after the addition of the new `blockreservedweight` option. however it can be useful for test and signet network see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32654#issuecomment-2925674473
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32654)
This PR updates `-blockmaxweight` startup option to be debug-only so that it will be hidden from help text.
The option is currently unlikely to be used on mainnet, after the addition of the new `blockreservedweight` option. however it can be useful for test and signet network see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32654#issuecomment-2925674473
📝 scott-weeden opened a pull request: " Add initial OpenAPI/Swagger specification for Bitcoin Core RPC and REST interfaces (issue #29912) "
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32728)
## Motivation
Currently, (almost) all clients manually implement the Bitcoin Core RPC API, which leads to:
- Accidental implementation bugs (e.g., unit mistakes such as vB vs BTC/kvB)
- Difficulty maintaining clients as the API evolves
- Increased effort to implement clients in new programming languages
There is no formal, machine-readable specification of the RPC API. Existing documentation is not sufficient for code generation or type-safe client implementations. See discussion in #29
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32728)
## Motivation
Currently, (almost) all clients manually implement the Bitcoin Core RPC API, which leads to:
- Accidental implementation bugs (e.g., unit mistakes such as vB vs BTC/kvB)
- Difficulty maintaining clients as the API evolves
- Increased effort to implement clients in new programming languages
There is no formal, machine-readable specification of the RPC API. Existing documentation is not sufficient for code generation or type-safe client implementations. See discussion in #29
...
💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "init: make `-blockmaxweight` startup option debug only":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32654#issuecomment-2962264233)
> No particular objection to that.
Done.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32654#issuecomment-2962264233)
> No particular objection to that.
Done.
💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Add initial OpenAPI/Swagger specification for Bitcoin Core RPC and REST interfaces (issue #29912)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32728#issuecomment-2962274183)
I strongly suspect this PR description is AI-generated; this makes it seem likely to me that the code is also AI-generated.
I also don't think this PR is ready for review, and it should be marked as draft (or probably better still, closed) while you work on it, at which point it can be opened.
FYI you can run tests locally while you work on your changes. Once you have those passing it can be opened here and run against the full CI suite.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32728#issuecomment-2962274183)
I strongly suspect this PR description is AI-generated; this makes it seem likely to me that the code is also AI-generated.
I also don't think this PR is ready for review, and it should be marked as draft (or probably better still, closed) while you work on it, at which point it can be opened.
FYI you can run tests locally while you work on your changes. Once you have those passing it can be opened here and run against the full CI suite.
💬 josibake commented on pull request "depends: fix cmake compatibility error for freetype":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32693#issuecomment-2962317000)
> Another approach might be to bump freetype itself to 2.12.1
I had considered this, but this felt like a more invasive change. The goal here is simply to un-break the depends build for newer versions of CMake. Whether or not to bump the version of freetype in depends can then be evaluated as its own change, with its own motivation.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32693#issuecomment-2962317000)
> Another approach might be to bump freetype itself to 2.12.1
I had considered this, but this felt like a more invasive change. The goal here is simply to un-break the depends build for newer versions of CMake. Whether or not to bump the version of freetype in depends can then be evaluated as its own change, with its own motivation.
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "init: make `-blockmaxweight` startup option debug only":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32654#issuecomment-2962337460)
tACK e017ef3c7eb775e2cf999674df341be56f7ba72d
Although I don't think this is super important, it's nice to declutter the default `--help` output.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32654#issuecomment-2962337460)
tACK e017ef3c7eb775e2cf999674df341be56f7ba72d
Although I don't think this is super important, it's nice to declutter the default `--help` output.
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "deps: Bump lief to 0.16.6":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32431#issuecomment-2962338677)
Guix Build:
```bash
8ee8f51264bd5f28d838207486f83db69a1dd4d00eeda009f35ef9ebff794d0f guix-build-4f56c9145a60/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
aaf5a45736f062df340bbd434295a087f90897401a8d9e1489f5ad56c4a82fab guix-build-4f56c9145a60/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-4f56c9145a60-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
d6b4a08a7e9dad84dcfdc504896cf0b13a4c2c416ef8608903cd542297936f74 guix-build-4f56c9145a60/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-4f56c9145a60-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
c236ea00cde96213
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32431#issuecomment-2962338677)
Guix Build:
```bash
8ee8f51264bd5f28d838207486f83db69a1dd4d00eeda009f35ef9ebff794d0f guix-build-4f56c9145a60/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
aaf5a45736f062df340bbd434295a087f90897401a8d9e1489f5ad56c4a82fab guix-build-4f56c9145a60/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-4f56c9145a60-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
d6b4a08a7e9dad84dcfdc504896cf0b13a4c2c416ef8608903cd542297936f74 guix-build-4f56c9145a60/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-4f56c9145a60-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
c236ea00cde96213
...
👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "deps: Bump lief to 0.16.6"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32431#pullrequestreview-2916777725)
ACK 4f56c9145a60c4fb837f11e47c5aa39ad8fa3523
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32431#pullrequestreview-2916777725)
ACK 4f56c9145a60c4fb837f11e47c5aa39ad8fa3523
💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "depends: fix cmake compatibility error for freetype":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32693#issuecomment-2962345661)
Sure, but then to me that begs the question: "For what reason did `cmake` introduce this policy?"
Having built with the policy disabled the practical answer appears to be "not much/nothing", but I don't know enough about `cmake` to know why the policy really exists in the first place.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32693#issuecomment-2962345661)
Sure, but then to me that begs the question: "For what reason did `cmake` introduce this policy?"
Having built with the policy disabled the practical answer appears to be "not much/nothing", but I don't know enough about `cmake` to know why the policy really exists in the first place.
✅ fanquake closed an issue: "guix: update LIEF from 0.13.2 to 0.16.x"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30520)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30520)
🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "deps: Bump lief to 0.16.6"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32431)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32431)
💬 Zeegaths commented on pull request "docs: adds correct updated documentation links":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32699#issuecomment-2962361406)
> This makes it necessary to manually update the links with every release, or at least with every new version that contains changes to those documentation files.
i have update it so it fetches the docs based on build version
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32699#issuecomment-2962361406)
> This makes it necessary to manually update the links with every release, or at least with every new version that contains changes to those documentation files.
i have update it so it fetches the docs based on build version
🤔 hodlinator reviewed a pull request: "refactor: Convert GenTxid to `std::variant`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32631#pullrequestreview-2916032256)
Code review d5a6e7a0a40bb78c2fcadd2662f2d64b86c374b7
Thanks for incorporating most of my feedback!
Mostly focused on reviewing non-test code.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32631#pullrequestreview-2916032256)
Code review d5a6e7a0a40bb78c2fcadd2662f2d64b86c374b7
Thanks for incorporating most of my feedback!
Mostly focused on reviewing non-test code.
💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "refactor: Convert GenTxid to `std::variant`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32631#discussion_r2139469824)
nit in a105a10d71c266cf7971fc66109c9ac8558e6d60:
Could avoid copy as `it` will keep the instance alive.
```C++
const GenTxidVariant& hash = *it;
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32631#discussion_r2139469824)
nit in a105a10d71c266cf7971fc66109c9ac8558e6d60:
Could avoid copy as `it` will keep the instance alive.
```C++
const GenTxidVariant& hash = *it;
```
💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "refactor: Convert GenTxid to `std::variant`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32631#discussion_r2139451786)
Yeah, makes sense to draw the line somewhere. (Noticed I had accidentally omitted the last 30 lines of the diff, fixed FWIW).
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32631#discussion_r2139451786)
Yeah, makes sense to draw the line somewhere. (Noticed I had accidentally omitted the last 30 lines of the diff, fixed FWIW).
💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "refactor: Convert GenTxid to `std::variant`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32631#discussion_r2139485731)
(nit in ab954a169f07c86f85e292d3f488df0cc066b722: Happy to see Freemasons have embraced Bitcoin. Might be neater to have 32 spaces for a multiple of 4 instead of current 33).
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32631#discussion_r2139485731)
(nit in ab954a169f07c86f85e292d3f488df0cc066b722: Happy to see Freemasons have embraced Bitcoin. Might be neater to have 32 spaces for a multiple of 4 instead of current 33).