👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#pullrequestreview-3051726249)
Code review ACK 241e9d14879abbc75a17dba764ef2ad58179db57. Just rebased since last review

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#discussion_r2228555002)
In commit "cmake: enable ENABLE_IPC option by default" (969a9472a43b7e8c0ae1b8d0dd1a71e5d118ea0c)

Maybe sort these while you are splitting them up. libboost-dev libqrencode-dev and systemtap-sdt-dev seem to be the only entries out of order.

💬 purpleKarrot commented on pull request "cmake: Move internal binaries from bin/ to libexec/":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31679#issuecomment-3113533739)
I confirm that the change to the CMake code is OK. I am not very fond of the `install_binary_component` function, but that is orthogonal to the PR.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "rpc: Fix internal bug in descriptorprocesspsbt when encountering invalid signatures":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33014#issuecomment-3113534833)
Please squash your commits according to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#squashing-commits

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "test, refactor: Embedded ASmap selected preparatory work":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33026#discussion_r2228569351)
done

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#discussion_r2228571714)
I did sort them, but missed a few.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "package validation: relax the package-not-child-with-unconfirmed-parents rule":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31385#discussion_r2228571572)
ah doi, restored

💬 glozow commented on pull request "package validation: relax the package-not-child-with-unconfirmed-parents rule":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31385#discussion_r2228570611)
🤦 thank you, fixed

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#discussion_r2228578817)
Fixed the sort

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "[29.x] backport #32069":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33052#issuecomment-3113551574)
Thanks, this should have been backported when #31757 was done, but likely missed at that happened later. Can you also add the rel note: https://github.com/fanquake/bitcoin/commit/da24253775f9f6cecd8fbcf65e8aa6f40090f72c.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#discussion_r2228510972)
In 28af4d727b3eeff3da0a3dfab0260c57fb52111c: This should be squashed into the commit that actually changes the Guix build. Ideally CMake would warn/error here, at least in the Guix build. We don't want it to continue silently if binaries don't exist/are missing from these checks.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#discussion_r2228508989)
Please don't make random (incomplete codebase-wise) formatting changes, to unrelated parts of the code. I think there's enough happening in this PR.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#discussion_r2228571627)
Yea, these need fleshing out, because they don't give much useful information to users, and will likely leave them with questions: "What's IPC?" (never defined), "What's `bitcoin-node`; should I use that instead of `bitcoind`?" (same for the GUI), "Why is this enabled by default if it's for some experimental feature I (and basically all other users) don't use?".

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#discussion_r2228590806)
This kept triggering needs-rebase, so seemed useful to fix. But I can revert.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3113566277)
You could probably split out the renaming, and just get them landed, given that should happen regardless of all the other changes here.

🤔 pablomartin4btc reviewed a pull request: "rpc: refactor: use string_view in Arg/MaybeArg"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32983#pullrequestreview-3051797902)
re-ACK 122b432b71e148cd85edcd74df741f99ac7f187c

Not blocking: I’d personally prefer keeping `Arg<std::string>` in `signmessage.cpp` if we're not planning to update `MessageVerify` to accept `string_view` instead of `const std::string&`. Is updating `MessageVerify` something you’d prefer to avoid at this stage?

💬 darosior commented on pull request "[29.x] backport #32069":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33052#issuecomment-3113596396)
Sure, done.

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "rpc: refactor: use string_view in Arg/MaybeArg":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32983#issuecomment-3113627621)
> Is updating `MessageVerify` something you’d prefer to avoid at this stage?

Yes. It involves a cascade of changes, many touching consensus code, that require significant review and have mostly nothing to do with RPC, so it would blow up the scope of this PR.

🤔 rkrux reviewed a pull request: "wallet, test: Replace MockableDatabase with in-memory SQLiteDatabase"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33032#pullrequestreview-3051716437)
Concept ACK f69852441e56c70edaebeaa7e2db4c6249c7e17c

I have looked in depth only the last commit. Almost all of my suggestions merge towards having child mock class(es) extending the base SQLite specific classes, wherever required. They can be deleted in the future if the need arises without touching the base SQLite classes. Also, I believe they would not make it difficult to achieve the following goal stated in the PR desc.

> This is particularly useful for future work that has the wallet
...

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "wallet, test: Replace MockableDatabase with in-memory SQLiteDatabase":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33032#discussion_r2228565019)
In https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/f69852441e56c70edaebeaa7e2db4c6249c7e17c "test, wallet: Replace MockableDatabase with in-memory SQLiteDatabase"

```diff
- return std::make_unique<SQLiteDatabase>(fs::PathFromString("mock/"), fs::PathFromString("mock/wallet.dat"), dummy_options, /*mock=*/true);
+ return std::make_unique<MockSQLiteDatabase>();
```

The `MockSQLiteDatabase` constructor can hardcode most of these mock values.