💬 SmartDever02 commented on pull request "net: Complete net/net_processing split refactoring":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33976#issuecomment-3594274227)
@pinheadmz Thank you for your feedback, when I built this on my locally, it worked as well. Let me check again...

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "net: Complete net/net_processing split refactoring"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33976)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "net: Complete net/net_processing split refactoring":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33976#issuecomment-3594425989)
ai slop

📝 codomposer opened a pull request: "test: add test loading a wallet backup on a pruned node"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33978)
# Add test for loading wallet backup on pruned node

## Summary

This PR adds a test case for loading a wallet backup on a pruned node to the `wallet_assumeutxo.py` functional test suite, addressing the TODO item that was previously documented in the test file.

## Motivation

Testing wallet backup restoration on pruned nodes is important because:
- Pruned nodes are commonly used to save disk space
- Users need confidence that wallet backups can be restored even on pruned nodes
- This
...

📝 codomposer opened a pull request: "test: add test loading a wallet backup on a pruned node"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33979)
# Add test for loading wallet backup on pruned node

## Summary

This PR adds a test case for loading a wallet backup on a pruned node to the `wallet_assumeutxo.py` functional test suite, addressing the TODO item that was previously documented in the test file.

## Motivation

Testing wallet backup restoration on pruned nodes is important because:
- Pruned nodes are commonly used to save disk space
- Users need confidence that wallet backups can be restored even on pruned nodes
- This
...

✅ maflcko closed a pull request: "test: add test loading a wallet backup on a pruned node"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33979)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: add test loading a wallet backup on a pruned node":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33979#issuecomment-3595042502)
thx, but there already is a pull request up

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "depends, doc: Add `tcl` as build dependency for `sqlite` package":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33975#issuecomment-3595081065)
lgtm ACK 632cf872a584e4a373a669aca5b885f63a2b7add

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "cmake: Set `WITH_ZMQ` to `ON` in Windows presets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33971#issuecomment-3595102351)
lgtm ACK 49c672853503e561cd1e7fed19a32f21ad345370

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "[CI] remove `doc/release-notes.md` from lint-spelling.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33968#issuecomment-3595188944)
> (not a hypothetical example).

I tried searching for a real example in the past, but I couldn't find one: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?q=%22LLM+reason+%28%E2%9C%A8+experimental%29%22+sort%3Aupdated-desc+is%3Apr+draft%3Afalse+label%3ABackport+is%3Aclosed+

Not sure how much value there is in codespell at this point, given the LLM typo linter, so codespell could even be removed fully. It also seems fine to keep as-is and deal with true and false positives in the backport pull req
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "cmake: Make `BUILD_KERNEL_TEST` depend on `BUILD_KERNEL_LIB`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33972#issuecomment-3595208102)
lgtm ACK fe1815d48f0cee57d2f1af50b377c7f9e462369e

💬 jsarenik commented on issue "Proposal for a new mempool design":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27677#issuecomment-3595226069)
I wonder if the cluster mempool would influence the operation of [alt.signetfaucet.com](https://alt.signetfaucet.com) which currently depends on the default `limitancestorcount` of 25.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Startup crash on macOS with GCC 15.2: `std::source_location::file_name()` is `nullptr`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33964#issuecomment-3595267273)
> I'm not sure how to create a reproducer for this...

For toolchain bugs, it helps to create a minimal reproducer. Often, this is easy to create in one shot, looking at the code that mis-compiled.

Sometimes, it is not so easy and you'll have to manually remove chunks from the full software, until you end up with something minimal. This may be tedious, when done manually. You can also use `creduce`, but this may not work in contexts where one can define a unique bug signature (https://github.co
...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Startup crash on macOS with GCC 15.2: `std::source_location::file_name()` is `nullptr`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33964#issuecomment-3595271169)
Unrelated, you can also try different version of your gcc package, to see if this was introduced recently.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[CI] remove `doc/release-notes.md` from lint-spelling.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33968#issuecomment-3595275892)
> so codespell could even be removed fully

It does seem to cause more problems than it's solving, I'd vote for that instead

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "guix: Use UCRT runtime for Windows release binaries":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33593#issuecomment-3595280357)
> The UCRT CI job is up [now](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33764).

You'll have to rebase this one and adjust the ci comments in the ci config files, no?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "[CI] remove `doc/release-notes.md` from lint-spelling.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33968#issuecomment-3595293116)
> will fail CI if there are spelling errors

I don't think this is true either. The comment in the file literally says:

> Note: Will exit successfully regardless of spelling errors.

👍 sedited approved a pull request: "cmake: Make `BUILD_KERNEL_TEST` depend on `BUILD_KERNEL_LIB`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33972#pullrequestreview-3523828047)
ACK fe1815d48f0cee57d2f1af50b377c7f9e462369e

💬 sedited commented on pull request "refactor: Add util::Result failure values, multiple error and warning messages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25665#issuecomment-3595384275)
This has been repeatedly close to merging, and I am a bit puzzled it didn't make it over the line a few times already (though I have myself to blame for that too by not being consistent on the review). At this point I wonder though if using `std::expected` instead would have more success. Afaict our minimal compiler versions are close to supporting c++23 and `std::expected` in particular.

📝 codomposer opened a pull request: "test: add test for coin write failure"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33980)
# Coin Write Failure Test Implementation Summary

## Overview

This implementation adds comprehensive test coverage for coin database write failures in Bitcoin Core. Previously, there were **no tests** for this critical failure scenario.

## What Was Added

### 1. Unit Test Suite (`src/test/coins_write_failure_tests.cpp`)

A complete unit test suite with **8 test cases** covering:

- ✅ Flush failure handling
- ✅ Sync failure handling
- ✅ Recovery after write failures
- ✅ Partial
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "guix: Use UCRT runtime for Windows release binaries":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33593#issuecomment-3595490396)
> > The UCRT CI job is up [now](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33764).
>
> You'll have to rebase this one and adjust the ci comments in the ci config files, no?

Thanks! Done.