👋 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

💬 BitcoinErrorLog commented on pull request "BIP-119 (OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY) (regtest only)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31989#issuecomment-3122172886)
> a Bitcoin soft fork should only be implemented in Bitcoin Core after there is (rough) consensus among the Bitcoin developer community

This is not sufficient for inclusion into the most popular implementation.

Developers are not a governance system for Bitcoin. Higher standards must be defined, required, and culturally acceptable.

💬 TheBlueMatt commented on pull request "[POC] wallet: Add Support for BIP-353 DNS-Based Bitcoin Address via External Resolver":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33069#discussion_r2233120018)
Why require users to pass in the converted string rather than letting them just pass in the HRN directly and adding the `.user._bitcoin-payment` ourselves?