💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Integrate `bitcoin-tidy` clang-tidy plugin":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26296#issuecomment-1653407802)
Fixed the non-determinism.
Dropped the test commit.
Fixed the issue in chainstate.h.
> it's because the current linter only works on cpp files not headers.
I guess that's another potential +1 for this approach?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26296#issuecomment-1653407802)
Fixed the non-determinism.
Dropped the test commit.
Fixed the issue in chainstate.h.
> it's because the current linter only works on cpp files not headers.
I guess that's another potential +1 for this approach?
👍 stickies-v approved a pull request: "refactor: Remove unused raw-pointer read helper from univalue"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28168#pullrequestreview-1549566799)
utACK 9999cfc1f3b728132e011f0aec24211212924de2
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28168#pullrequestreview-1549566799)
utACK 9999cfc1f3b728132e011f0aec24211212924de2
💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "refactor: Remove unused raw-pointer read helper from univalue":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28168#discussion_r1276106247)
nit: can't get iwyu to work on this file, but i think `#include <cstring>` is now no longer required
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28168#discussion_r1276106247)
nit: can't get iwyu to work on this file, but i think `#include <cstring>` is now no longer required
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Integrate `bitcoin-tidy` clang-tidy plugin":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26296#discussion_r1276134360)
Pinned to a commit here.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26296#discussion_r1276134360)
Pinned to a commit here.
🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: remove unused code in `wallet_fundrawtransaction`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28164)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28164)
💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "test doc: tests `acceptstalefeeestimates` option is only supported on regtest chain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28157#discussion_r1276161304)
Thank you.
I removed the clears.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28157#discussion_r1276161304)
Thank you.
I removed the clears.
💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "test doc: tests `acceptstalefeeestimates` option is only supported on regtest chain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28157#issuecomment-1653452667)
> I get the same error on master branch too, so I dunno if it's really up to you and this PR to patch around it or not.
I think this should be fixed in follow-up PR.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28157#issuecomment-1653452667)
> I get the same error on master branch too, so I dunno if it's really up to you and this PR to patch around it or not.
I think this should be fixed in follow-up PR.
💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "refactor: Remove unused raw-pointer read helper from univalue":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28168#discussion_r1276174862)
cc @sipsorcery @hebasto Any idea how to make a newline after the `#include` statement here on Windows?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28168#discussion_r1276174862)
cc @sipsorcery @hebasto Any idea how to make a newline after the `#include` statement here on Windows?
📝 MarcoFalke converted_to_draft a pull request: "refactor: Remove unused raw-pointer read helper from univalue"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28168)
The helpers are unused outside of tests and redundant with the existing `bool read(std::string_view raw);`.
Fix both issues by removing them.
Also, simplify the tests code by removing a `std::string` constructor where possible.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28168)
The helpers are unused outside of tests and redundant with the existing `bool read(std::string_view raw);`.
Fix both issues by removing them.
Also, simplify the tests code by removing a `std::string` constructor where possible.
💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "p2p: Diversify automatic outbound connections with respect to networks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27213#discussion_r1276175156)
This example should be prevented by the "Protect extra full outbound peers by network" commit, shouldn't it? ie the process would be:
* 7 ipv4 + 1 tor
* 7 ipv4 + 1 tor + 1 i2p (via "network specific connection")
* 6 ipv4 + 1 tor + 1 i2p (tor and i2p nodes protected from eviction due to `if (!m_connman.MultipleManualOrFullOutboundConns(pnode->addr.GetNetwork())) return;` code path)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27213#discussion_r1276175156)
This example should be prevented by the "Protect extra full outbound peers by network" commit, shouldn't it? ie the process would be:
* 7 ipv4 + 1 tor
* 7 ipv4 + 1 tor + 1 i2p (via "network specific connection")
* 6 ipv4 + 1 tor + 1 i2p (tor and i2p nodes protected from eviction due to `if (!m_connman.MultipleManualOrFullOutboundConns(pnode->addr.GetNetwork())) return;` code path)
💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "refactor: Remove unused raw-pointer read helper from univalue":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28168#discussion_r1276196195)
What about this? Adds a CR/LF so should work on windows? (but can't test)
```
<HeaderFromHexdump RawFilePath="%(JsonTestFile.FullPath)" HeaderFilePath="%(JsonTestFile.FullPath).h" SourceHeader="#include <string>
namespace json_tests{ static const std::string %(JsonTestFile.Filename){" SourceFooter="};}" />
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28168#discussion_r1276196195)
What about this? Adds a CR/LF so should work on windows? (but can't test)
```
<HeaderFromHexdump RawFilePath="%(JsonTestFile.FullPath)" HeaderFilePath="%(JsonTestFile.FullPath).h" SourceHeader="#include <string>
namespace json_tests{ static const std::string %(JsonTestFile.Filename){" SourceFooter="};}" />
```
💬 vasild commented on pull request "Relay own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27509#discussion_r1276217017)
> IIUC this line schedules a replacement sensitive connection because the one we were passed in has the wrong services and so it gets dumped.
Yes.
> I think this is the only line in this function that makes it apply strictly to only sensitive relays. So I wonder if that should be asserted at the top? Or could be renamed to `PushUnbroadcastTxToSensistiveRelay()`? At the very least maybe sensitive-only should be explained in the function description on L933 ?
Right. While this function wi
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27509#discussion_r1276217017)
> IIUC this line schedules a replacement sensitive connection because the one we were passed in has the wrong services and so it gets dumped.
Yes.
> I think this is the only line in this function that makes it apply strictly to only sensitive relays. So I wonder if that should be asserted at the top? Or could be renamed to `PushUnbroadcastTxToSensistiveRelay()`? At the very least maybe sensitive-only should be explained in the function description on L933 ?
Right. While this function wi
...
💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Integrate `bitcoin-tidy` clang-tidy plugin":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26296#issuecomment-1653550331)
Should this also remove the `/* Continued */` code-bloat?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26296#issuecomment-1653550331)
Should this also remove the `/* Continued */` code-bloat?
💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Integrate `bitcoin-tidy` clang-tidy plugin":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26296#discussion_r1276235709)
I wonder if atomic updates (for example the LogPrint macro being renamed, or similar) would be easier to do if the whole code is inside this repo, just like before for the python linter?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26296#discussion_r1276235709)
I wonder if atomic updates (for example the LogPrint macro being renamed, or similar) would be easier to do if the whole code is inside this repo, just like before for the python linter?
💬 theuni commented on pull request "ci: Integrate `bitcoin-tidy` clang-tidy plugin":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26296#discussion_r1276240902)
I'm not at all opposed to this. In fact, yeah, that probably makes more sense. Could always move to a repo if it gets too big/busy here.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26296#discussion_r1276240902)
I'm not at all opposed to this. In fact, yeah, that probably makes more sense. Could always move to a repo if it gets too big/busy here.
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "test, rpc: invalid sighashtype coverage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28166#discussion_r1276252322)
Done
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28166#discussion_r1276252322)
Done
💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "Relay own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27509#discussion_r1276249120)
nit: Any reason to re-implement `std::advance()`?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27509#discussion_r1276249120)
nit: Any reason to re-implement `std::advance()`?
💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "Relay own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27509#discussion_r1276243984)
shouldn't this use the peerman options struct?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27509#discussion_r1276243984)
shouldn't this use the peerman options struct?
💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "Relay own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27509#discussion_r1276240357)
Not sure if the low level net layer is the right place to inspect high level p2p messages and then decide to drop them. It may be good to enumerate why this is needed (if at all).
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27509#discussion_r1276240357)
Not sure if the low level net layer is the right place to inspect high level p2p messages and then decide to drop them. It may be good to enumerate why this is needed (if at all).
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "test, rpc: invalid sighashtype coverage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28166#issuecomment-1653588511)
Thanks @MarcoFalke, done.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28166#issuecomment-1653588511)
Thanks @MarcoFalke, done.
💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "Relay own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27509#issuecomment-1653599387)
Not sure how effective it is to put the transaction into the mempool. I know that your implementation treats the positive case (reply to an `inv` as if the tx wasn't there, or withhold the tx in reply to a `getdata`). However, a failure to reply to an otherwise valid `inv` can still be used to query the mempool. Or similarly, a failure to (also) withhold related transactions in an otherwise valid `getdata` can be used to query the mempool. (For example, if the transaction was a CPFP and the pare
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27509#issuecomment-1653599387)
Not sure how effective it is to put the transaction into the mempool. I know that your implementation treats the positive case (reply to an `inv` as if the tx wasn't there, or withhold the tx in reply to a `getdata`). However, a failure to reply to an otherwise valid `inv` can still be used to query the mempool. Or similarly, a failure to (also) withhold related transactions in an otherwise valid `getdata` can be used to query the mempool. (For example, if the transaction was a CPFP and the pare
...