💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "rpc, test: Fix JSON parsing errors in unloadwallet and getdescriptoractivity RPCs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32845#discussion_r2197642119)
> "descriptors" documentation could be improved, just quickly wrote something down. E.g. not sure if order matters here, or if there's anything else to look out for.

We should probably just leave the name as "scanobjects" (instead of my change to "descriptors"), to avoid introducing backwards incompatible API changes. The description should be change-able without issue.

💬 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_r2197642575)
Fixed it in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32939

🤔 stickies-v reviewed a pull request: "refactor: avoid double hashing in `SourceLocationHasher`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32939#pullrequestreview-3005632806)
Since there are quite a few follow-ups in #32604, it might make sense to do them all in one (or at least larger, related PRs) instead of carving it out into dozens of small ones?

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "refactor: avoid double hashing in `SourceLocationHasher`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32939#discussion_r2197694485)
As we've already discussed [here](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32604#discussion_r2163614334), I don't think it would be an improvement to remove this comment. Using `CSipHasher` over `std::hash` is non-trivial and helped me understand the code.

💬 hebasto commented on issue "cmake: searching across directories for config files":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32938#issuecomment-3057410237)
Could you please confirm whether the following patch helps:
```diff
--- a/depends/patches/libevent/cmake_fixups.patch
+++ b/depends/patches/libevent/cmake_fixups.patch
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ cmake: set minimum version to 3.5
#

-cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.1 FATAL_ERROR)
-+cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.5 FATAL_ERROR)
++cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.15 FATAL_ERROR)

if (POLICY CMP0054)
cmake_policy(SET CMP0054 NEW)
```
?

🤔 marcofleon reviewed a pull request: "p2p: improve TxOrphanage denial of service bounds"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31829#pullrequestreview-3005543794)
The `protected_count == 0` assertion failed in `txorphan_protected`.
<details>
<summary>crash</summary>

```bash
../../../../src/test/fuzz/txorphan.cpp:395 operator(): Assertion `protected_count == 0' failed.
==2872074== ERROR: libFuzzer: deadly signal
#0 0x558b2f142c41 in __sanitizer_print_stack_trace (/root/bitcoin/txorphanfuzzbuild/bin/fuzz+0x1c92c41) (BuildId: 2ed4a047818a3d1ea39c53799e090813bde04dba)
#1 0x558b2f097c08 in fuzzer::PrintStackTrace() (/root/bitcoin/txorphanfuzzb
...

💬 marcofleon commented on pull request "p2p: improve TxOrphanage denial of service bounds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31829#discussion_r2197640228)
What's the point of `std::floor` here? Also I noticed this doesn't match the calculation in `GetLatencyScore()`. Is it meant to be an overestimate?

💬 marcofleon commented on pull request "p2p: improve TxOrphanage denial of service bounds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31829#discussion_r2197660618)
We increment by the latency score above but then decrement here by announcement count. These aren't guaranteed to be the same afaict, so this might be what's causing the failure of the `protected_count == 0` assertion.

✅ l0rinc closed a pull request: "refactor: avoid double hashing in `SourceLocationHasher`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32939)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Avoid copies by using const references or by move-construction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31650#issuecomment-3057477770)
> Please update the PR description now that `readability-avoid-const-params-in-decls` was reapplied.

thx, done.



> Re-ran tidy as it looks like 20 will pickup more issues: https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5041587878625280?logs=ci#L1916:

thx, rebased.

Should be easy to re-review.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Enable `-Werror=dev` in CI & Guix":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32937#issuecomment-3057491388)
Guix Build:
```bash
c7870f6c402ac407d0de4edc21d42f5040d19374deaba50b496e4f99a421c8e8 guix-build-35e0331493e9/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
d64532e1bd83568f2386a6b67c49e0843f08c0d486828b1cd0ce955a179b07bb guix-build-35e0331493e9/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-35e0331493e9-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
a158a955bf7b82ef1572db4ad5fd4d5b2885631cad810102b67d16eaadb4e3df guix-build-35e0331493e9/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-35e0331493e9-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
225421a4d478e602
...

💬 yuvicc commented on pull request "kernel: Introduce initial C header API":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#issuecomment-3057521471)
> It looks like your benchmark includes serialization in its hot loop, which is not the case for our internal `VerifyScriptBench`. I'd be surprised if there was any overhead if the serialization is performed externally in your bench too.

Agree, I think I shall keep the script serialization for the internal code inside the hot loop as well and also vice versa. Let me check!

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Avoid cd into build dir":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32880#discussion_r2197790246)
```suggestion
bash -c "cmake --build ${BASE_BUILD_DIR} $MAKEJOBS --target all $GOAL" || ( echo "Build failure. Verbose build follows." && cmake --build "${BASE_BUILD_DIR}" --target all "$GOAL" --verbose ; false )
```

🤔 hebasto reviewed a pull request: "ci: Avoid cd into build dir"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32880#pullrequestreview-3005786140)
Concept ACK.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "test, subprocess: Improve coverage report correctness":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30075#issuecomment-3057624886)
> @hebasto are you still working on this?

No, not at the moment.

✅ hebasto closed a pull request: "test, subprocess: Improve coverage report correctness"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30075)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Avoid cd into build dir":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32880#discussion_r2197882926)
nice catch, fixed. Also, removed the `bash -c`, because if it was needed, the fallback code would be broken

🤔 brunoerg reviewed a pull request: "fuzz: Make process_message(s) more deterministic"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32822#pullrequestreview-3006007306)
reACK fa501ea5ed874ffcba2b606806460e61a1204bd2

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Avoid cd into build dir":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32880#discussion_r2197928044)
yeah, the fallback was missing `-j1` (required after ninja) and had a wordsplitting bug, due to the use of Bash :(

Fixed those as well.

🤔 danielabrozzoni reviewed a pull request: "test: refactor: overhaul block hash determination for `CBlock{,Header}` objects"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32868#pullrequestreview-3006094747)
tACK 50b41bcfbfd93f103cf6e2af1999c43947bc3f40

Nice! Dropping `calc_sha256` and `rehash` makes the code cleaner and less error-prone. I also like the new `hash_int` and `hash_hex` names, they're easier to remember than the old `hash`/`sha256`, which always got me confused.

Thanks for separating the commits and adding TODOs in the intermediate ones, it really helped make the PR easier to follow.

I checked that the remaining `.sha256` and `.hash` usages are unrelated. To quickly grep for `
...