💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "log: Mitigate disk filling attacks by rate limiting LogPrintf, LogInfo, LogWarning, LogError":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32604#discussion_r2188160472)
I haven't spent time trying to come up with an alternative yet, so I might be completely wrong, but I'm not sure I fully understand yet why we need these states.
If the role of the extra `NEWLY_SUPPRESSED` state is just to signal that we need to log a warning message now, maybe we can simplify a bit since it seems to me some work might be duplicated here (i.e. that we should be able to get rid of this enum completely).
Let me know if you need me to create a prototype to (dis)prove my hunch.

...

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "log: Mitigate disk filling attacks by rate limiting LogPrintf, LogInfo, LogWarning, LogError":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32604#discussion_r2188215958)
Can we document somewhere the expected behavior for when the node is restarted?

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "log: Mitigate disk filling attacks by rate limiting LogPrintf, LogInfo, LogWarning, LogError":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32604#discussion_r2188158176)
this way we're not seeing the unequal values, just the message. Why not `BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL`?

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "log: Mitigate disk filling attacks by rate limiting LogPrintf, LogInfo, LogWarning, LogError":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32604#discussion_r2188159134)
Is there a reason to copy the large message on each invocation?
```suggestion
void LogFromLocation(int location, const std::string& message)
```

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "log: Mitigate disk filling attacks by rate limiting LogPrintf, LogInfo, LogWarning, LogError":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32604#discussion_r2188161714)
we seem to have a lot of (comment) styles here, now that it's this short, let's simplify and unify this:

```suggestion
//! Fixed window rate limiter for logging.
```

📝 Sazwan96 opened a pull request: "Create cmake-multi-platform.yml"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32887)
Here's a `cmake-multi-platform.yml` GitHub Actions workflow that builds and tests a CMake project on multiple platforms (Linux, macOS, Windows) with different compilers:

```yaml
name: CMake Multi-Platform Build

on:
push:
branches: [ main, master ]
pull_request:
branches: [ main, master ]

jobs:
build:
runs-on: ${{ matrix.os }}
strategy:
matrix:
include:
# Linux configurations
- os: ubuntu-22.04
compiler: gcc
...

💬 Sazwan96 commented on pull request "Create cmake-multi-platform.yml":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32887#issuecomment-3042937690)
Heloo

💬 Eunovo commented on pull request "validation: ensure assumevalid is always used during reindex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31615#issuecomment-3043395366)
Rebased https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/e260e23d88cd6b2aaa03d9d45dae8b174f2cfe1f to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/a53d43bc0f010513b0922ad48d611f402ec0e511 to address https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31615#discussion_r2185605623

💬 Eunovo commented on pull request "validation: ensure assumevalid is always used during reindex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31615#discussion_r2188910716)
I modified to calculate chainwork 100 blocks greater than the current `best_header`, and I checked that the test still verifies the expected behaviour. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31615/commits/a53d43bc0f010513b0922ad48d611f402ec0e511

💬 polespinasa commented on pull request "refactor: CFeeRate encapsulates FeeFrac internally":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32750#discussion_r2189149829)
done

💬 polespinasa commented on pull request "refactor: CFeeRate encapsulates FeeFrac internally":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32750#discussion_r2189152069)
Great! Thanks

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "refactor: use options struct for signing and PSBT operations":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32876#discussion_r2189159233)
@optout21 see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32876#issuecomment-3036784505

💬 polespinasa commented on pull request "refactor: CFeeRate encapsulates FeeFrac internally":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32750#discussion_r2189162753)
Great! Thanks :)
Done

💬 polespinasa commented on pull request "refactor: CFeeRate encapsulates FeeFrac internally":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32750#discussion_r2189174459)
True! Done

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "cmake: Move internal binaries from bin/ to libexec/":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31679#discussion_r2189175462)
> To be sure, the "show this help message" does not appear when you just run bitcoin with no arguments

That would be great, but it doesn't for me:

```
% build/bin/bitcoin
Usage: bitcoin [OPTIONS] COMMAND...

Options:
...
-h, --help Show this help message
```

💬 polespinasa commented on pull request "refactor: CFeeRate encapsulates FeeFrac internally":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32750#discussion_r2189201868)
I don't see in which case a 0 or less can be passed. It should never happen.
If it fails on the assume then there's something wrong in another part of the code and we should not treat that as an expected case.

Happy to go back to return -1 if there's a specific case for that.

🤔 hodlinator reviewed a pull request: "headerssync: Preempt unrealistic unit test behavior"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#pullrequestreview-2992479971)
Thanks for checking this out @danielabrozzoni! Pushed some minor changes based on your feedback.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "headerssync: Preempt unrealistic unit test behavior":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2189176855)
Agree that's cleaner, fixed!
Also changed from
`== std::nullopt` to
`.has_value()`.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "headerssync: Preempt unrealistic unit test behavior":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2189181808)
Changed to the following, let me know what you have further suggestions:
> Start feeding back headers into the permanent block index once more than this number of them have been received and validated against commitments.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "headerssync: Preempt unrealistic unit test behavior":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2189214990)
In this case we have the comment right above describing the same thing:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/79bdc6a785bca96dababc698336c04b8625b7d1c/src/test/headers_sync_chainwork_tests.cpp#L140

Went through the code and realized `HappyPath` was repeating `/*full_headers_message=*/` in one piece of newer code, so removed that.

This boolean parameter to `ProcessNextHeaders()` is somewhat of a code smell. Maybe could be split into 2 public functions (`ProcessNextHeaders()` + `ProcessLa
...