💬 fjahr commented on pull request "init: Require explicit -asmap filename":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33770#issuecomment-3552996786)
reACK 288b8c30be42f2879d1a1f3d5ec3cac13f87ace4
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33770#issuecomment-3552996786)
reACK 288b8c30be42f2879d1a1f3d5ec3cac13f87ace4
📝 fanquake converted_to_draft a pull request: "subprocess: Let shell parse command on non-Windows systems"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32577)
Fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32574.
The `subprocess::Popen` constructor has two overloads: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/7763e86afa045910a14ac9b2cd644927a447370b/src/util/subprocess.h#L938-L941
During the migration from Boost.Process in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28981, the second was chosen for two reasons: (1) it minimized changes at the call sites, and (2) it [addressed](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28981#issuecomment-1837238921) quot
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32577)
Fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32574.
The `subprocess::Popen` constructor has two overloads: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/7763e86afa045910a14ac9b2cd644927a447370b/src/util/subprocess.h#L938-L941
During the migration from Boost.Process in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28981, the second was chosen for two reasons: (1) it minimized changes at the call sites, and (2) it [addressed](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28981#issuecomment-1837238921) quot
...
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "rpc: Handle -named argument parsing where '=' character is used":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32821#discussion_r2542278811)
> For example, suppose someone created a wallet where -named is enabled by default using: `./bitcoin-cli createwallet "my=wallet"` internally this will be passed as a -named argument and the user will get the error about "Unknown named parameter my" even though the user passed the argument by position. That's why I think your suggested approach might not work here, but you can clarify that if you think so or if I'm missing any point.
I don't understand why my suggestion does not work. `my=` i
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32821#discussion_r2542278811)
> For example, suppose someone created a wallet where -named is enabled by default using: `./bitcoin-cli createwallet "my=wallet"` internally this will be passed as a -named argument and the user will get the error about "Unknown named parameter my" even though the user passed the argument by position. That's why I think your suggested approach might not work here, but you can clarify that if you think so or if I'm missing any point.
I don't understand why my suggestion does not work. `my=` i
...
💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "test: add `-alertnotify` test for large work invalid chain warning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33893#discussion_r2542333645)
8a40e10c1ef4cfdd5fe19796131af2b5a34531ce: nit: `i` is not used.
```suggestion
for _ in range(7): # invalid chain must be at least 6 blocks longer to trigger warning
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33893#discussion_r2542333645)
8a40e10c1ef4cfdd5fe19796131af2b5a34531ce: nit: `i` is not used.
```suggestion
for _ in range(7): # invalid chain must be at least 6 blocks longer to trigger warning
```
💬 exp3rimenter commented on pull request "kernel, validation: Refactor ProcessNewBlock(Headers) to return BlockValidationState":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33856#issuecomment-3553135639)
Concept ACK on refactoring bool to return state.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33856#issuecomment-3553135639)
Concept ACK on refactoring bool to return state.
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "refactor, docs: Embedded ASMap [2/3]: Refactor asmap internals and add documentation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33878#discussion_r2542387292)
Ah, rebase fail I guess, done.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33878#discussion_r2542387292)
Ah, rebase fail I guess, done.
💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "init: Split file path handling out of -asmap option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33631#issuecomment-3553263582)
Thanks for explaining. Now I see why you still want this PR. In the short term with #33770 there are no problems, and in the long terms with embedded asmap turned on by default there are no problems. But in the medium turn with embedded asmap data present but not turned on by default, you dislike the fact that `-asmap=1` would load a file called `1` if we don't take additional steps to prevent this.
To clarify:
- In the short term, with [#33770](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3377
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33631#issuecomment-3553263582)
Thanks for explaining. Now I see why you still want this PR. In the short term with #33770 there are no problems, and in the long terms with embedded asmap turned on by default there are no problems. But in the medium turn with embedded asmap data present but not turned on by default, you dislike the fact that `-asmap=1` would load a file called `1` if we don't take additional steps to prevent this.
To clarify:
- In the short term, with [#33770](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3377
...
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "refactor, docs: Embedded ASMap [2/3]: Refactor asmap internals and add documentation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33878#discussion_r2542466280)
Ok, I hope I got them all now.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33878#discussion_r2542466280)
Ok, I hope I got them all now.
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "refactor, docs: Embedded ASMap [2/3]: Refactor asmap internals and add documentation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33878#discussion_r2542466628)
Done. And I just clarified that failure means 0 in python, otherwise there would have been more edits necessary to make this clear, for example the line below your suggestion still talks about a failure too.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33878#discussion_r2542466628)
Done. And I just clarified that failure means 0 in python, otherwise there would have been more edits necessary to make this clear, for example the line below your suggestion still talks about a failure too.
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "refactor, docs: Embedded ASMap [2/3]: Refactor asmap internals and add documentation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33878#discussion_r2542467175)
Done
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33878#discussion_r2542467175)
Done
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "refactor, docs: Embedded ASMap [2/3]: Refactor asmap internals and add documentation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33878#discussion_r2542467832)
Fixed
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33878#discussion_r2542467832)
Fixed
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "refactor, docs: Embedded ASMap [2/3]: Refactor asmap internals and add documentation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33878#discussion_r2542468167)
Indeed, removed.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33878#discussion_r2542468167)
Indeed, removed.
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "refactor, docs: Embedded ASMap [2/3]: Refactor asmap internals and add documentation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33878#discussion_r2542468478)
That works, done.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33878#discussion_r2542468478)
That works, done.
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "refactor, docs: Embedded ASMap [2/3]: Refactor asmap internals and add documentation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33878#discussion_r2542486234)
Renamed
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33878#discussion_r2542486234)
Renamed
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "refactor, docs: Embedded ASMap [2/3]: Refactor asmap internals and add documentation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33878#issuecomment-3553314078)
Rebased since #33026 was merged 🥳 and addressed all comments. Thanks for the reviews!
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33878#issuecomment-3553314078)
Rebased since #33026 was merged 🥳 and addressed all comments. Thanks for the reviews!
💬 stratospher commented on pull request "net: option to disallow v1 connection on ipv4 and ipv6 peers":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30951#discussion_r2542548870)
oh good point.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30951#discussion_r2542548870)
oh good point.
💬 stratospher commented on pull request "net: option to disallow v1 connection on ipv4 and ipv6 peers":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30951#discussion_r2542550696)
done. I've made it an error instead so that the user doesn't accidentally switch off listening mode.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30951#discussion_r2542550696)
done. I've made it an error instead so that the user doesn't accidentally switch off listening mode.
💬 stratospher commented on pull request "net: option to disallow v1 connection on ipv4 and ipv6 peers":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30951#discussion_r2542555935)
> Is there any reason to not have DisableV10nClearnet do the GetNetClass internally?
done. the initial version in the PR with both outbound+ inbound v2 only required another function to detect inbound onion and we had to pass network. but we can remove it for outbound v2 only.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30951#discussion_r2542555935)
> Is there any reason to not have DisableV10nClearnet do the GetNetClass internally?
done. the initial version in the PR with both outbound+ inbound v2 only required another function to detect inbound onion and we had to pass network. but we can remove it for outbound v2 only.
💬 vostrnad commented on pull request "init: Require explicit -asmap filename":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33770#issuecomment-3553386556)
utACK 288b8c30be42f2879d1a1f3d5ec3cac13f87ace4
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33770#issuecomment-3553386556)
utACK 288b8c30be42f2879d1a1f3d5ec3cac13f87ace4
💬 stratospher commented on pull request "net: option to disallow v1 connection on ipv4 and ipv6 peers":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30951#discussion_r2542560527)
makes sense. changed it to `RequiresV2ForOutbound`. hopefully it's better.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30951#discussion_r2542560527)
makes sense. changed it to `RequiresV2ForOutbound`. hopefully it's better.