💬 maflcko commented on issue "Revisiting us self-hosting parts of our CI":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31965#issuecomment-3249719463)
> Defining CI in a YAML file that is part of the project essentially states "it works on my machine(s)". The project will start to support variables that are defined in the CI configuration only and it will derive from the default cmake workflow (example: running ctest directly will fail and a special script or a custom target is required to run all tests).

I think this is a pre-existing problem. It was never possible to run all tests (fuzz, functional, lint) from the build system (autotools, c
...

💬 purpleKarrot commented on issue "CI: Cmake warnings should be errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31476#issuecomment-3249720985)
> It is brittle to silently ignore Cmake warnings in the CI.

I think the desire to turn warnings into errors on CI (both configure warnings and build warnings) is due to the fact that CI does not perform any analysis of the build output. If the build result was displayed on a [dashboard](https://open.cdash.org/index.php?project=CMake), you would not want to turn warnings into errors, because it would take away useful statistics.
Turning warnings into errors is the wrong approach. Consider how t
...

🤔 ismaelsadeeq reviewed a pull request: "Add functional test for IPC interface"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33201#pullrequestreview-3180738153)
Code review ACK 235016f5b78ba9f472b56df0825690307fffc7e6 🤖

Comments are suggestion for improvement and can come in a followup

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Add functional test for IPC interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33201#discussion_r2319026367)
In "test: add is_ipc_compiled() and skip_if_no_ipc() functions" a5e470e134b8fb60264c349d8580e6fb0175b7c2

nitty-nit feel free to ignore

In commit message body
's/ function tests /functional tests /g'

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Add functional test for IPC interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33201#discussion_r2319254646)
In "tests: add functional tests for IPC interface" 592e253f76764f108e9c34fa0da32451091b946a

This should be removed since we now have `skip_if_no_py_capnp`

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Add functional test for IPC interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33201#discussion_r2319334707)
In "tests: add functional tests for IPC interface" 592e253f76764f108e9c34fa0da32451091b946a

It will be nice if we use defined constants or use define new ones for the magic numbers, or use response from rpc
It will help in improving the readability of the test.
```diff
diff --git a/test/functional/interface_ipc.py b/test/functional/interface_ipc.py
index 6ff11cbe0f8..912fa3a459b 100755
--- a/test/functional/interface_ipc.py
+++ b/test/functional/interface_ipc.py
@@ -97,18 +97,21 @@ cla
...

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Add functional test for IPC interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33201#discussion_r2319240482)
In "test: add is_ipc_compiled() and skip_if_no_ipc() functions" a5e470e134b8fb60264c349d8580e6fb0175b7c2

nit:
's/compiled/enabled/g'

💬 maflcko commented on issue "CI: Cmake warnings should be errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31476#issuecomment-3249731950)
> Turning warnings into errors is the wrong approach.

The thinking behind this is that all warnings should be addressed in one way or another, otherwise there wouldn't be something to warn about.

One way to achieve this is by turning warnings into errors and then addressing the errors.

💬 m3dwards commented on issue "Revisiting us self-hosting parts of our CI":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31965#issuecomment-3249732228)
Further, a lot of the YAML is actually setting things up like caching which is not only essential for reasonable performance but also is vendor specific and so couldn't really exist in reproducible CI scripts either written as they are or in cmake.

🤔 ismaelsadeeq reviewed a pull request: "build: suggest -DENABLE_IPC=OFF when missing capnp"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33290#pullrequestreview-3181213833)
Concept ACK

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Migrate CI to hosted Cirrus Runners":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#issuecomment-3249777657)
> To complete migration from self-hosted to hosted for this repo, the backport branches `27.x`, `28.x` and `29.x` would also need their CI ported, but these are left for followups to this change (and pending review/changes here first).

27.x looks close to EOL in one month, according to https://bitcoincore.org/en/lifecycle/, so I guess it could just die with the old CI?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Migrate CI to hosted Cirrus Runners":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#issuecomment-3249782168)
Yea. I think it's fine to leave `27.x` as is, this just needs backporting to `29.x` & `28.x`.

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "[29.x] *san CI backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33294)
Backports:
* #32999
* #33099
* #33258

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Add functional test for IPC interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33201#discussion_r2319395069)
"enabled" feels a bit like it can change at runtime, but this is a check about whether it has been compiled in, so I think the name is correct

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Add functional test for IPC interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33201#discussion_r2319397753)
> currently

I don't think it will ever be possible to run them with tidy, also it doesn't make sense to do?

💬 purpleKarrot commented on pull request "cmake: fatal error when PIE not supported":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33282#issuecomment-3249812522)
Where is it defined or documented why `CMAKE_POSITION_INDEPENDENT_CODE` is set to `ON` in the first place?

A better approach would be to not override user preferences at all and set the `POSITION_INDEPENDENT_CODE` target property explicitly on targets that need it.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: set ENABLE_IPC to OFF when fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33235#issuecomment-3249828430)
lgtm

Should be fine either way and shouldn't matter much, because the set of devs without capnp doing fuzzing is limited

💬 purpleKarrot commented on issue "Revisiting us self-hosting parts of our CI":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31965#issuecomment-3249833121)
> Further, a lot of the YAML is actually setting things up like caching which is not only essential for reasonable performance but also is vendor specific and so couldn't really exist in reproducible CI scripts either written as they are or in cmake.

I don't see how setting up a cache could require YAML in a way that is not possible to reproduce in the cmake language. I explicitly covered caching in my presentation.

💬 purpleKarrot commented on issue "CI: Cmake warnings should be errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31476#issuecomment-3249855202)
> It is not possible for errors to exist, because pull requests will not be merged when errors exist in the CI.

This is just a matter of configuration. The same mechanism that prevents merging when errors exist could be used to prevent merging when warnings exist.

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "cmake: fatal error when PIE not supported":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33282#issuecomment-3249932464)
> A better approach would be to not override user preferences at all

Thanks for the review. I think I agree. I already tried to improve that behaviour by not overriding `CMAKE_POSITION_INDEPENDENT_CODE` when it was set by the user, but it seems better to not change it at all, as you say.

I've force-pushed to use our existing `core_interface` to propagate `INTERFACE_POSITION_INDEPENDENT_CODE` to all our targets, since I think the current behaviour of using PIE for all targets is sensible. W
...