💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "validation: Stricter assumeutxo error handling when renaming chainstates":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27862#discussion_r1227196719)
This seems like a significant behavior change. The way I read this, `InvalidateCoinsDBOnDisk` is only called by `MaybeCompleteSnapshotValidation`. It's return type is ignored by its call site in `ConnectTip`, which I think would now lead us to skip over some code afterwards.

👋 hebasto's pull request is ready for review: "Use `int32_t` type for most transaction size/weight values"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23962)

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26152#issuecomment-1588047051)
Rebased, added four commits for the follow-ups from #27021, cleaned up the commit messages, added @theStack’s wonderful topology overview for the transactions, built each commit separately to make sure all tests pass.

**Ready for review**

👋 Xekyo's pull request is ready for review: "Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26152)

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "test: handle failed `assert_equal()` assertions in bcc callback functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27831#issuecomment-1588058429)
ack 4798c4542b

I was a bit unfamilar with this python library so reviewed the bcc [docs](https://github.com/iovisor/bcc/blob/master/docs/tutorial_bcc_python_developer.md) and [reference guide](https://github.com/iovisor/bcc/blob/master/docs/reference_guide.md) before getting started...

Agree that these changes allow us to see errors propagated out into the test framework logs. I broke a few of the tests to ensure that this was the case.

nit: actually we currently dump errors to stderr,
...

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "blockstorage: Return on fatal flush errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27866#issuecomment-1588058565)
Re https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27866#pullrequestreview-1475602374

> It also seems reasonable that some failed flushes like periodic flushes might not need to be fatal errors.

This is a good point, and I did not think of this before. A flush may fail once due to some sporadic error, but may succeed again at a later point in time. I'm still not sure though if it is really correct to ignore the flush error. If we fail to flush, but succeed in writing the block index, and then cras
...

💬 theuni commented on issue "Use semantic analysis in lint-logs.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27825#issuecomment-1588062158)
Still working on getting the plugin cleaned up, but in the meantime it pointed out what seems to have found a buggy case [here](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L5433). Will PR a trivial fix for that.

💬 ccdle12 commented on pull request "[WIP] add a stratum v2 template provider":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27854#discussion_r1227252081)
I reasoned since that this proposal wasn't introducing/editing arguably a core feature that it should be optional. Also setting it by default, I think clashes with how the functional tests currently run in Bitcoin since the sv2 server will respond to building a new template on best block change and will affect assertions on the state of the mempool in functional tests.

💬 ccdle12 commented on pull request "[WIP] add a stratum v2 template provider":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27854#discussion_r1227252607)
This is true, I treated this PR as draft. Currently in development and testing against the SRI, all templates are assumed to be future so this would be updated if this PR gains interest for a complete implementation.

💬 ccdle12 commented on pull request "[WIP] add a stratum v2 template provider":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27854#discussion_r1227253132)
True, we can hard code it when these fields need to be serialized and add a comment above explaining why they are currently hard coded

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Draft: rework validation logic for assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27746#discussion_r1227262047)
In 99e28b1a58b9864e4f393a2a065ef63f12eb8b85 "Tighten requirements for adding elements to setBlockIndexCandidates"

Is this test case expected to fail with the changes in this commit or is it just expected to be incorrect? I tried re-enabling it and it passes.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Draft: rework validation logic for assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27746#discussion_r1227262861)
In 99e28b1a58b9864e4f393a2a065ef63f12eb8b85 "Tighten requirements for adding elements to setBlockIndexCandidates"

Is this check expected to fail? I tried uncommenting it and the test passes.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Draft: rework validation logic for assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27746#discussion_r1227265509)
In 99e28b1a58b9864e4f393a2a065ef63f12eb8b85 "Tighten requirements for adding elements to setBlockIndexCandidates"

This diff makes the test work, assuming that `TryAddBlockIndexCandidate` is working as it is supposed to be.

```diff
diff --git a/src/test/validation_chainstatemanager_tests.cpp b/src/test/validation_chainstatemanager_tests.cpp
index 8fab53c5c5..b9fe054a64 100644
--- a/src/test/validation_chainstatemanager_tests.cpp
+++ b/src/test/validation_chainstatemanager_tests.cpp
@@
...

💬 LarryRuane commented on pull request "logging: use bitset for categories":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26697#issuecomment-1588151534)
Force-pushed rebase for merge conflict

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Use `int32_t` type for most transaction size/weight values":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23962#issuecomment-1588155245)
ACK 3ef756a5b558a1dd2fcb93bc0d4237707aa04f3f

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Use `int32_t` type for most transaction size/weight values":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23962#issuecomment-1588162123)
Something that just occurred to me: do/should we consider tracepoints to be a stable api? Since this changes the types for some of the tracepoints, this would ostensibly break any third party programs that rely on those tracepoints.

📝 achow101 opened a pull request: "wallet: Give deprecation warning when loading a legacy wallet"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27869)
Next step in legacy wallet deprecation.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "rest: bugfix, fix crash error when calling `/deploymentinfo`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27853#issuecomment-1588193938)
ACK 7d452d826a7056411077b870efc3872bb2fa45e4

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "rest: bugfix, fix crash error when calling `/deploymentinfo`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27853)

💬 TheBlueMatt commented on pull request "[WIP] add a stratum v2 template provider":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27854#discussion_r1227309139)
We can turn it on with a non-default config knob, though, it doesn't have to be non-built. I'm not sure I understand why it should be compile-time optional - it doesn't add a new dependency, doesn't invasive touch other code, and is completely unused if the config knob isn't turned on.

⚠️ achow101 opened an issue: "Single quotes in arguments cause RPC console to to improperly detect method name"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/737)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

Using the RPC console with a command that has arguments with single quotes results in a `Method not found` error.

### Expected behaviour

The command should either accept the argument as is, or return an error about failing to parse the argument.

### Steps to reproduce

```
> getdescriptorinfo wpkh([deadbeef/0'/0']cNaQCDwmmh4dS9LzCgVtyy1e1xjCJ21GUDHe9K98nzb689JvinGV)
Method not found (
...