✅ fanquake closed an issue: "intermittent timeout in wallet_signer.py : sendall timed out"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33015)

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "intermittent timeout in wallet_signer.py : 'createwallet' RPC took longer than 1200.000000 seconds"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32855)

👋 fanquake's pull request is ready for review: "test: fix RPC coverage check"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33064)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Run unit test parallel with functional tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33000#issuecomment-3121563681)
Concept ACK. Not sure about the approach of more Bash, to call new Python, that wraps more Bash.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Bump SCRIPT_VERIFY flags to 64 bit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32998#issuecomment-3121571275)
@hebasto how can we move past the GUI build failures here? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/16538448423/job/46776353144?pr=32998#step:6:3769.

💬 fanquake commented on issue "SegFault in `coinstatsindex_tests`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32936#issuecomment-3121573845)
Has this happened again? If not, and the suspicion is OOM, then I think close, and re-open if it happens again, with more info / steps to reproduce?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "test: add option to skip large re-org test in feature_block":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33003#issuecomment-3121579232)
Looking at corecheck, there are currently 3 other functional tests that run slower than `feature_block.py` (`p2p_segwit.py`, `p2p_opportunistic_1p1c.py` & `mining_getblocktemplate_longpoll.py`). `p2p_opportunistic_1p1c.py` should be better after #33048.

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "refactor: Move `FreespaceChecker` class into its own module"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/881)
The MOC compiler in older versions of Qt 6 fails to parse `qt/intro.cpp`, as noted in [this comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32998#issuecomment-3082011233).

This PR proposes a move-only refactoring to simplify the source structure by eliminating the need for the inline `#include <qt/intro.moc>`, thereby effectively working around the issue.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Bump SCRIPT_VERIFY flags to 64 bit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32998#issuecomment-3121589767)
> @hebasto how can we move past the GUI build failures here? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/16538448423/job/46776353144?pr=32998#step:6:3769.

Sure!

> > > CI failure seems to be due to [a bug in qt6 6.4](https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-31496?focusedId=888930&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-888930):
> >
> >
> > Although both failed CI job use Clang 20.1.7, the error can also be reproduced with GCC 13.3.
>
> [Refac
...

💬 hebasto commented on issue "SegFault in `coinstatsindex_tests`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32936#issuecomment-3121596465)
> Has this happened again?

Yeah, see: https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin-core-nightly/actions/runs/16535696284/job/46769686066.

> ... and re-open if it happens again, with more info / steps to reproduce?

I'll try to reproduce it locally.

📝 romanz opened a pull request: "doc/zmq: fix unix socket path example"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33070)
Following https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/75a5c8258ec5309fe506438aa3815608430b53d6/doc/release-notes/release-notes-28.0.md?plain=1#L105

👍 pinheadmz approved a pull request: "doc/zmq: fix unix socket path example"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33070#pullrequestreview-3058009745)
tested ACK

following existing directions:
`Error: Invalid port specified in -zmqpubrawtx: 'ipc:///tmp/bitcoind.tx.raw'`

💬 kristapsk commented on pull request "RPC: Return `permitbaremultisig` and `maxdatacarriersize` in `getmempoolinfo`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29954#issuecomment-3121742667)
Rebased

🤔 cedwies reviewed a pull request: "doc/zmq: fix unix socket path example"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33070#pullrequestreview-3058044842)
Ran bitcoind with both example endpoints.

ipc:///tmp/bitcoind.tx.raw: exits with "invalid port specified"
unix:/tmp/bitcoind.tx.raw: node starts cleanly

interface_zmq.py passed

ACK e83699a

💬 GregTonoski commented on issue "bitcoind shouldn't fail to progress with synchronization: endless [leveldb] Generated table ... logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31882#issuecomment-3122036461)
I'm sharing logs of the second test (started on Jul 7 15:23:39).

[20250707logs.txt](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/21445305/20250707logs.txt)
[debug.log](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/21445306/debug.log)
[du.txt](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/21445307/du.txt)

I will provide my interpretation later.

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "test: add assertions to SRD max weight test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33058#discussion_r2233067368)
Well since I see you changed the assertion, then I think your rewording also makes sense.

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "test: add assertions to SRD max weight test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33058#issuecomment-3122102430)
> Yeah, as you noted, Single Random Draw is non-deterministic, so you would only get a predictable input set if there is only exactly one composition permitted. I don’t think that’s necessary to test what you want, though:

Well we all know the algorithm is non-deterministic, however ideally it would be possible to make deterministic test cases :).

I see you slightly weakened the assertion to handle the non-determinism which is a definite improvement over the current test.

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "test: add assertions to SRD max weight test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33058#discussion_r2233069431)
This doesn't show the behavior of the re-ordering done by the min-heap but it's better than before. And I think it would be a lot of work to make this test deterministic.

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "test: add assertions to SRD max weight test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33058#discussion_r2233084856)
I removed the check for res since it's implied by the second assertion.

💬 nervana21 commented on pull request "rpc, wallet: replace remaining hardcoded output types with `FormatAllOutputTypes`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33065#issuecomment-3122169008)
tACK [251d020](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/251d02084688c67523e9ec92ec79ee657454ab93)

I ran all affected help commands and confirmed that all updated outputs are as expected