💬 glozow commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1246480765)
After whiteboarding this idea + chunking, ended up with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#issuecomment-1612912372

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "Add support for RFC8439 variant of ChaCha20":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27985#discussion_r1244700187)
53c1b7a: nit: since starting with block_counter = 1 is a detail of RFC8439's AEAD and not RFC8439's ChaCha20, would it be better to just mention the general form?
```suggestion
* In this mode, only 2^38 - 64*block_counter bytes can be encrypted.
```

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "Add support for RFC8439 variant of ChaCha20":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27985#discussion_r1246254085)
2c0c749: this test vector is repeated in this [line](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/626d3464695ed513e555371b870a5899872d723b/src/test/crypto_tests.cpp#L486).

👍 dergoegge approved a pull request: "test: Fuzz on macOS"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27932#pullrequestreview-1505139891)
utACK fae7c50d201726f605938c3511dd9119efeea5ec

⚠️ naftalimurgor opened an issue: "Error: no RPC connection" when trying to run Bitcoin Core functional tests"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28000)
### Motivation

I'm getting a strange error running tests under `/src/test/functional/` with the following error:

```sh
Temporary test directory at /tmp/test_runner_₿_🏃_20220504_123152
Running Unit Tests for Test Framework Modules
..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 10 tests in 0.614s

OK
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/src/bitcoin/test/functional/create_cache.py", line 27, in <module>
CreateCache().main()
Fil
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "contrib: add macOS test for fixup_chains usage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27999#issuecomment-1613016499)
cc @theuni

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "ci: build Valgrind (3.21) from source":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27992#issuecomment-1613018513)
Concept ACK

Speeding up the valgrind jobs seems like a nice win! (assuming our self compiled valgrind isn't skipping more expensive checks).

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: Fuzz on macOS"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27932)

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "ci: filter all subtrees from tidy output"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27996#pullrequestreview-1505169342)
re-ACK 62633b50461cb67dfb37d6485e604152e727559c

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "Error: no RPC connection" when trying to run Bitcoin Core functional tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28000#issuecomment-1613069039)
Can you try with:


```diff
diff --git a/test/functional/test_framework/test_node.py b/test/functional/test_framework/test_node.py
index 5111d88e15..1e605e00b8 100755
--- a/test/functional/test_framework/test_node.py
+++ b/test/functional/test_framework/test_node.py
@@ -232,6 +232,8 @@ class TestNode():
poll_per_s = 4
for _ in range(poll_per_s * self.rpc_timeout):
if self.process.poll() is not None:
+ self.stderr.seek(0)
+
...

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "ci: filter all subtrees from tidy output"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27996)

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "net: run disconnect in I2P thread":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27912#issuecomment-1613098947)
Yes I agree and like this approach better.

I had created a `ThreadI2PSocketHandler()` thread which essentially had the same loop as `ThreadSocketHandler()`. The repetition of `DisconnectNodes()` and `NotifyNumConnectionsChanged()` in two threads seemed annoying (and needed a few new locks) and I was considering whether a _new_ seperate thread should just handle disconnecting nodes marked for disconnection and notifications, but I think doing it as part of `CreateNodeFromAcceptedSocket()` (in
...

💬 vasild commented on pull request "test: add end-to-end tests for CConnman and PeerManager":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26812#issuecomment-1613145594)
`4557cc336f...353d323356`: take some suggestions

Invalidates ACK from @jonatack

⚠️ re2005 opened an issue: "Unable to send funds"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28001)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

Using Bitcoin Core `v25.0.0` have it sync (pruned)

My wallet shows valid balance but I'm not able to send funds

### Expected behaviour

Be able to send funds when the wallet display you have balance



### Steps to reproduce

- Try to send funds to a valid rec
...

💬 vasild commented on pull request "test: add end-to-end tests for CConnman and PeerManager":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26812#discussion_r1246596157)
Alright, so I got it the other way around. So the point is to avoid recompiling all tests if e.g. `ALL_NETWORKS` is changed (defined in `test/util/net.h`). That lowers the re-compilation from 28-29 sec to about 10 sec (if `src/test/util/net.h` is modified).

I will leave it as it is because moving the code around would further increase the size of this PR which suffers from lack of interest from reviewers and I think expanding it may further turn people away.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "test: add end-to-end tests for CConnman and PeerManager":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26812#discussion_r1246596519)
Done.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "test: add end-to-end tests for CConnman and PeerManager":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26812#discussion_r1246596786)
Done.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "test: add end-to-end tests for CConnman and PeerManager":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26812#discussion_r1246602200)
Done.

I changed it to use `{}` as suggested but I don't see a point to use `{}` instead of `=` for initialization when `auto` is used. I find the `{}` variant a little bit less readable but see the merit to use it when `Type1 x{expresson_of_Type2};` is used to detect incompatibilities between `Type1` and `Type2`. But why do that for `auto x{expressoin_of_any_type};`?

💬 vasild commented on pull request "test: add end-to-end tests for CConnman and PeerManager":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26812#discussion_r1246602826)
Done, except this:

```
test/net_msg_tests.cpp should add these lines:
#include <boost/preprocessor/arithmetic/limits/dec_256.hpp>
#include <boost/preprocessor/comparison/limits/not_equal_256.hpp>
#include <boost/preprocessor/control/expr_iif.hpp>
#include <boost/preprocessor/control/iif.hpp>
#include <boost/preprocessor/detail/limits/auto_rec_256.hpp>
#include <boost/preprocessor/logical/compl.hpp>
#include <boost/preprocessor/logical/limits/bool_256.hpp>
#include <boost/preprocessor
...

💬 furszy commented on issue "Unable to send funds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28001#issuecomment-1613178955)
Based on the logs, the input is spent on the mempool.

To confirm it, try the following:
1) Call `listunspent` and save the output `txid` and `vout` (the one whose id starts with `af4dd794df`).
2) Call `gettxspendingprevout '[{txid: your_tx_id, vout: your_vout}]'`

And let me know what `gettxspendingprevout` returns. If it returns a non-empty array, we will need to see why your wallet didn't mark the output as spent.