📝 Sjors opened a pull request: "rpc: fix getblock(header) returns target for tip"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33446)
A target field was added to the getblock and getblockheader RPC calls in #31583, but it mistakingly always used the tip value.

This commit fixes it to return the target for the given block.

Because regtest does not have difficulty adjustment, a test is added for mainnet instead. This required mining an additional block.

Also fix a few minor mistakes in the test (suite):
- rename the create_coinbase retarger_period argument to halving_period. Before #31583 this was hardcoded for regtest
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "rpc: add target to getmininginfo field and show next block info":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31583#discussion_r2365712567)
I ended up wasting my own time in #33446 forgetting this, so added more instructions :-)

💬 Sjors commented on issue "RPC: getblock(header) returns the same target for every block":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33440#issuecomment-3315102729)
#33446 fixes this

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "rpc: fix getblock(header) returns target for tip":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33446#issuecomment-3315104012)
This should probably be backported to v29 and v30.

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "system: improve handling around GetTotalRAM()"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33435#pullrequestreview-3249158788)
ACK 8fcf71ca005449e639f189dec7ec0163a07e6d37.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "system: improve handling around GetTotalRAM()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33435#discussion_r2365733195)
4ebf456dc589a993faa73b8b377c0d1919fbd577

Could you please update the commit message so it reflects the changes?

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "system: improve handling around GetTotalRAM()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33435#discussion_r2365731315)
```suggestion
// file COPYING or https://opensource.org/license/mit/.
```

💬 zaidmstrr commented on pull request "rpc: Handle -named argument parsing where '=' character is used":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32821#discussion_r2365757547)
Although using class has no performance issues, but I think the stateless point is valid, and using namespace here is a better choice to group related functions and for readability. This will also remove indirection function calls.

💬 zaidmstrr commented on pull request "rpc: Handle -named argument parsing where '=' character is used":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32821#discussion_r2365757618)
Thanks, fixed.

💬 zaidmstrr commented on pull request "rpc: Handle -named argument parsing where '=' character is used":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32821#discussion_r2365757992)
Thanks for suggesting. Fixed in the latest commit.

💬 zaidmstrr commented on pull request "rpc: Handle -named argument parsing where '=' character is used":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32821#discussion_r2365758773)
Agreed. Now in the latest commit, I removed this and shifted it above the function with more descriptive info and an example command.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "rpc: fix getblock(header) returns target for tip":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33446#issuecomment-3315194787)
I split 88fb025c83c7aa84766a5385e6a797102dd94513 in two commits: one that adds the mock mainnet block and updates the docs, and one that's focussed on fixing the actual bug and adding test coverage for it (using this new block).

💬 BitByBitByBitByBit commented on pull request "Release: 30.0 translations update":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33275#issuecomment-3315273628)
> > Sure, see https://github.com/maflcko/b-c-gui-translations-review/tree/99bf41c4e5ab74eee8c248b240e8e940e47e09ec/reviews
>
> Friendly ping to coordinators for addressing issues:
>
> * @sr-gi -- Catalan (ca)
> * @ostruvek -- Czech (cs)
> * @pryds -- Danish (da)
> * @laanwj @sipa -- Dutch (nl)
> * @Emzy -- German (de)
> * @cryptomeow -- Greek (el)
> * @jesterhodl -- Polish (pl)
>
> UPD. French (fr) and Spanish (es) coordinators have been notified via Transifex messages.
>
> UPD
...

🤔 hodlinator reviewed a pull request: "qa: Improvements to debug_assert_log + busy_wait_for_debug_log"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33423#pullrequestreview-3244741286)
Thanks for the feedback!

> Thanks for reducing useless work - did you measure any speedup?

Rebased new push on top of #33336 which has a lot of `assert_debug_log()` (010cf81407c0df8de766fd2a116463d180f25f33), the below represents somewhat average runs:
```
₿ git co 2025/09/assert_debug_log_rebased~3
₿ hyperfine -r 30 -N ./build/test/functional/feature_assumevalid.py
Benchmark 1: ./build/test/functional/feature_assumevalid.py
Time (mean ± σ): 6.058 s ± 0.049 s [User: 4.263 s
...

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "qa: Improvements to debug_assert_log + busy_wait_for_debug_log":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33423#discussion_r2362983549)
1) Agree `join_log` is more accurate, changed.
2) It felt like the setup code was all before the `yield`.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "qa: Improvements to debug_assert_log + busy_wait_for_debug_log":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33423#discussion_r2364601882)
Done.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "qa: Improvements to debug_assert_log + busy_wait_for_debug_log":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33423#discussion_r2362813877)
I prefer `!s` since it is closer to the original `str()`. `!r` seems more appropriate when one wants to copy the result into code, mirroring `repr()`, feverishly escaping backslashes etc:
```python
>>> repr(r'\w')
"'\\\\w'"
>>> str(r'\w')
'\\w'
```

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "qa: Improvements to debug_assert_log + busy_wait_for_debug_log":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33423#discussion_r2364558825)
We only report one `found`-entry per found expected message if it exists in the log, doesn't matter if it exists twice in the log (the indexes are not into the log), so I think it should be alright.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "qa: Improvements to debug_assert_log + busy_wait_for_debug_log":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33423#discussion_r2364544756)
Agreed that it's nicer not modify inputs, done!

I had the list comprehension of
```python
remaining = [e for e in remaining if e not in log]
```
Then I realized it was wasteful to keep searching if we already failed to find one of the expected messages, so I reverted the list comprehension and added a `break`.

Found another way to probably get rid of `found` (not well tested). But it comes at the expense of copying the remaining enumerated `list` for each outer loop iteration, so holdi
...

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "qa: Improvements to debug_assert_log + busy_wait_for_debug_log":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33423#discussion_r2364603250)
Moved.