💬 maflcko commented on issue "Networking tests fail on emulated big-endian systems":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31812#issuecomment-2967112918)
It would be nice to exactly find the issue and fix it, but I won't be working on this for now 😅
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31812#issuecomment-2967112918)
It would be nice to exactly find the issue and fix it, but I won't be working on this for now 😅
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-2967130272)
Should be easy to fix by removing this line: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/libmultiprocess/blob/019839758085cb094f107e9ac354cbda79b388e2/.clang-tidy#L18
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-2967130272)
Should be easy to fix by removing this line: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/libmultiprocess/blob/019839758085cb094f107e9ac354cbda79b388e2/.clang-tidy#L18
📝 rkrux opened a pull request: "rpc, doc: clarify the response of listtransactions RPC"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32737)
I noticed this behaviour while perf testing PR #27286 and it was not something that I expected, updating the doc to make it present in the RPCHelp command.
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.
GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->
<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32737)
I noticed this behaviour while perf testing PR #27286 and it was not something that I expected, updating the doc to make it present in the RPCHelp command.
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.
GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->
<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and
...
💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "p2p: avoid traversing blocks (twice) during IBD for no reason":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32730#discussion_r2143003197)
> The last idea that had was the enabled flag inside the TxDownloadManager (check the PR description, you might like this one more).
I saw that but not yet sure until I see it in action. I definitely dislike the current arg passing, so I'd vote for that if we really need this param
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32730#discussion_r2143003197)
> The last idea that had was the enabled flag inside the TxDownloadManager (check the PR description, you might like this one more).
I saw that but not yet sure until I see it in action. I definitely dislike the current arg passing, so I'd vote for that if we really need this param
💬 sipa commented on pull request "Cluster linearization: separate tests from tests-of-tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30605#issuecomment-2967247693)
I have abstracted out the `std::next_permutation` logic into a separate `ExhaustiveLinearize()` function, and also added a comment that explains how the variable functions/classes/tests are related.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30605#issuecomment-2967247693)
I have abstracted out the `std::next_permutation` logic into a separate `ExhaustiveLinearize()` function, and also added a comment that explains how the variable functions/classes/tests are related.
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Add checkBlock() to Mining interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#discussion_r2143040953)
This shouldn't happen, but if it does, we don't want to accidentally approve the block. I added `NONFATAL_UNREACHABLE` to make this clear.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#discussion_r2143040953)
This shouldn't happen, but if it does, we don't want to accidentally approve the block. I added `NONFATAL_UNREACHABLE` to make this clear.
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-2967285236)
> looks like Tidy got more strict again...
```diff
diff --git a/src/ipc/capnp/protocol.cpp b/src/ipc/capnp/protocol.cpp
index 691bdf5f92..3326f70931 100644
--- a/src/ipc/capnp/protocol.cpp
+++ b/src/ipc/capnp/protocol.cpp
@@ -16,8 +16,8 @@
#include <mp/util.h>
#include <util/threadnames.h>
-#include <assert.h>
-#include <errno.h>
+#include <cassert>
+#include <cerrno>
#include <future>
#include <memory>
#include <mutex>
diff --git a/src/ipc/interfaces.cpp b/src/ipc/inte
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-2967285236)
> looks like Tidy got more strict again...
```diff
diff --git a/src/ipc/capnp/protocol.cpp b/src/ipc/capnp/protocol.cpp
index 691bdf5f92..3326f70931 100644
--- a/src/ipc/capnp/protocol.cpp
+++ b/src/ipc/capnp/protocol.cpp
@@ -16,8 +16,8 @@
#include <mp/util.h>
#include <util/threadnames.h>
-#include <assert.h>
-#include <errno.h>
+#include <cassert>
+#include <cerrno>
#include <future>
#include <memory>
#include <mutex>
diff --git a/src/ipc/interfaces.cpp b/src/ipc/inte
...
🤔 rkrux reviewed a pull request: "wallet, rpc: Remove deprecated balances from getwalletinfo and getunconfirmedbalance"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32721#pullrequestreview-2921691287)
ACK c3fe85e2d6dd4f251a62a99fd891b0fa370f9712
I'm in favour of this removal as it gets rid of duplication in the RPCs and leads to fewer sources of balance in the RPCs and to lesser code to maintain as well, which I find quite desirable.
I am not sure if the removal of the long deprecated items constitute to a breaking change as we would expect the users to _not_ have been using these items already.
Besides adding in the release notes, I like how the conventional commits suggest to mention
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32721#pullrequestreview-2921691287)
ACK c3fe85e2d6dd4f251a62a99fd891b0fa370f9712
I'm in favour of this removal as it gets rid of duplication in the RPCs and leads to fewer sources of balance in the RPCs and to lesser code to maintain as well, which I find quite desirable.
I am not sure if the removal of the long deprecated items constitute to a breaking change as we would expect the users to _not_ have been using these items already.
Besides adding in the release notes, I like how the conventional commits suggest to mention
...
📝 Bitchryankilledme opened a pull request: "Create msbuild.yml"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32738)
btc-isdnh.com
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.
GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->
<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:
* Any test improvements or new
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32738)
btc-isdnh.com
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.
GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->
<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:
* Any test improvements or new
...
💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Add checkBlock() to Mining interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#discussion_r2143115151)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#discussion_r2143040953
> This shouldn't happen, but if it does, we don't want to accidentally approve the block. I added `NONFATAL_UNREACHABLE` to make this clear.
Is that change in the latest push? I don't see it and I'm not sure it would help as nonfatal macros are mostly intended for RPC code and nothing in the IPC code handles them right now. I think I would suggest just adding a comment to this line like:
```c++
if (state.IsValid()
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#discussion_r2143115151)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#discussion_r2143040953
> This shouldn't happen, but if it does, we don't want to accidentally approve the block. I added `NONFATAL_UNREACHABLE` to make this clear.
Is that change in the latest push? I don't see it and I'm not sure it would help as nonfatal macros are mostly intended for RPC code and nothing in the IPC code handles them right now. I think I would suggest just adding a comment to this line like:
```c++
if (state.IsValid()
...
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-2967389155)
For reference, the failure in the test-each-commit CI (re-run) was (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/15610014963/job/43981198408#step:7:1986):
```bash
node0 2025-06-12T12:34:42.336592Z (mocktime: 2025-06-12T12:34:46Z) [net] [net.cpp:2041] [InactivityCheck] [net] version handshake timeout, disconnecting peer=0
test 2025-06-12T12:34:43.290505Z TestFramework.utils (ERROR): wait_until() failed. Predicate: ''''
def test_function():
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-2967389155)
For reference, the failure in the test-each-commit CI (re-run) was (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/15610014963/job/43981198408#step:7:1986):
```bash
node0 2025-06-12T12:34:42.336592Z (mocktime: 2025-06-12T12:34:46Z) [net] [net.cpp:2041] [InactivityCheck] [net] version handshake timeout, disconnecting peer=0
test 2025-06-12T12:34:43.290505Z TestFramework.utils (ERROR): wait_until() failed. Predicate: ''''
def test_function():
...
📝 hodlinator converted_to_draft a pull request: "wallet: Warn upon failing to scan directory"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32736)
Make wallet DB detect and report failure to scan wallet directory.
Found while reviewing: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31410#pullrequestreview-2604068753
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32736)
Make wallet DB detect and report failure to scan wallet directory.
Found while reviewing: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31410#pullrequestreview-2604068753
💬 fanquake commented on issue "Networking tests fail on emulated big-endian systems":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31812#issuecomment-2967418597)
> Running the exact same commands passes for me:
I ran the same commands, on a macOS machine, using podman, and it also worked fine.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31812#issuecomment-2967418597)
> Running the exact same commands passes for me:
I ran the same commands, on a macOS machine, using podman, and it also worked fine.
💬 vasild commented on pull request "doc: Update Qt 6 packages on FreeBSD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32717#discussion_r2143191313)
`qt6-tools` suffices:
```suggestion
pkg install qt6-base qt6-tools
```
`qt6-translations` depends on `qt6-tools`. I tried installing just `qt6-base qt6-tools` (`qt6-tools` pulled a few more deps) and compilation succeeded.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32717#discussion_r2143191313)
`qt6-tools` suffices:
```suggestion
pkg install qt6-base qt6-tools
```
`qt6-translations` depends on `qt6-tools`. I tried installing just `qt6-base qt6-tools` (`qt6-tools` pulled a few more deps) and compilation succeeded.
🤔 BrandonOdiwuor reviewed a pull request: "wallet, rpc: Remove deprecated balances from getwalletinfo and getunconfirmedbalance"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32721#pullrequestreview-2921936952)
ACK c3fe85e2d6dd4f251a62a99fd891b0fa370f9712 removing the deprecated `balance, unconfirmed_balance, immature_balance` fields from `getwalletinfo` and `getunconfirmedbalance` RPCs, as this infomation can be found on the `getbalances` RPC
<img width="759" alt="Screenshot 2025-06-12 at 19 31 15" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/8a9dd961-ecb5-4ee6-b0a6-7b021083f00a" />
Master | c3fe85e2d6dd4f251a62a99fd891b0fa370f9712
:-------------------------:|:-------------------
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32721#pullrequestreview-2921936952)
ACK c3fe85e2d6dd4f251a62a99fd891b0fa370f9712 removing the deprecated `balance, unconfirmed_balance, immature_balance` fields from `getwalletinfo` and `getunconfirmedbalance` RPCs, as this infomation can be found on the `getbalances` RPC
<img width="759" alt="Screenshot 2025-06-12 at 19 31 15" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/8a9dd961-ecb5-4ee6-b0a6-7b021083f00a" />
Master | c3fe85e2d6dd4f251a62a99fd891b0fa370f9712
:-------------------------:|:-------------------
...
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Add checkBlock() to Mining interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#issuecomment-2967550739)
Turns out I got a little carried away by #32421; blocks do still need `rehash()`.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#issuecomment-2967550739)
Turns out I got a little carried away by #32421; blocks do still need `rehash()`.
⚠️ achow101 pinned an issue: "build: RFC Coverage build type"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31047)
Porting this issue from: https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/issues/341.
It's not clear if using our Coverage build type works with Clang, or not. In the linked thread there are simultaneous claims that it "works", but also that it does not work. It seems from the discussion that even using GCC with the Coverage build type is flaky.
There's been suggestions to add a Coverage mode for Clang: https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/pull/233, however adding a second way of doing things, when the cu
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31047)
Porting this issue from: https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/issues/341.
It's not clear if using our Coverage build type works with Clang, or not. In the linked thread there are simultaneous claims that it "works", but also that it does not work. It seems from the discussion that even using GCC with the Coverage build type is flaky.
There's been suggestions to add a Coverage mode for Clang: https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/pull/233, however adding a second way of doing things, when the cu
...
⚠️ achow101 unpinned an issue: "build: RFC Coverage build type"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31047)
Porting this issue from: https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/issues/341.
It's not clear if using our Coverage build type works with Clang, or not. In the linked thread there are simultaneous claims that it "works", but also that it does not work. It seems from the discussion that even using GCC with the Coverage build type is flaky.
There's been suggestions to add a Coverage mode for Clang: https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/pull/233, however adding a second way of doing things, when the cu
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31047)
Porting this issue from: https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/issues/341.
It's not clear if using our Coverage build type works with Clang, or not. In the linked thread there are simultaneous claims that it "works", but also that it does not work. It seems from the discussion that even using GCC with the Coverage build type is flaky.
There's been suggestions to add a Coverage mode for Clang: https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/pull/233, however adding a second way of doing things, when the cu
...
📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "tsan: drop Qt wildcard suppressions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32739)
Replaces the wildcards with non-wildcards. Enough for the CI to pass for me locally on x86_64 and aarch64. I would not be suprised if the CI here/someone else uncovers more. If this looks too unruly to maintain, maybe we should just drop the TODO? I haven't yet seen a `deadlock` issue.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32739)
Replaces the wildcards with non-wildcards. Enough for the CI to pass for me locally on x86_64 and aarch64. I would not be suprised if the CI here/someone else uncovers more. If this looks too unruly to maintain, maybe we should just drop the TODO? I haven't yet seen a `deadlock` issue.
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: fix cmake compatibility error for freetype":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32693#issuecomment-2967591666)
Guix Build:
```bash
96d5182898d13bbe5ee972df791c7fba7a4c3927c6fd224eba20e8d99fbf5173 guix-build-d7c37906e7b1/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
88d39050979a7441601f371a81e80fbe43035ff564d03dbca5de1fe61d9f6876 guix-build-d7c37906e7b1/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-d7c37906e7b1-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
20f78def7e6b24c1901b67ec1d694d315da1c3db45ff616b3ffff36046f785e6 guix-build-d7c37906e7b1/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-d7c37906e7b1-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
1dafb25aa1ea1a89
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32693#issuecomment-2967591666)
Guix Build:
```bash
96d5182898d13bbe5ee972df791c7fba7a4c3927c6fd224eba20e8d99fbf5173 guix-build-d7c37906e7b1/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
88d39050979a7441601f371a81e80fbe43035ff564d03dbca5de1fe61d9f6876 guix-build-d7c37906e7b1/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-d7c37906e7b1-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
20f78def7e6b24c1901b67ec1d694d315da1c3db45ff616b3ffff36046f785e6 guix-build-d7c37906e7b1/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-d7c37906e7b1-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
1dafb25aa1ea1a89
...
💬 PeterWrighten commented on pull request "wallet: Allow read-only database access for info and dump commands":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32685#issuecomment-2967598737)
@achow101 I modified the code as your review comments, and I hope you can recheck them. It seems i could still not run all ci tests without your approval, is it because of mechanism? or other reason which we did not realize...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32685#issuecomment-2967598737)
@achow101 I modified the code as your review comments, and I hope you can recheck them. It seems i could still not run all ci tests without your approval, is it because of mechanism? or other reason which we did not realize...