💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: skip some backward compatibility tests under valgrind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27228#discussion_r1129815496)
nit: Might be a smaller diff, and more clear, if this was put into the `skip_if_no_previous_releases` function?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27228#discussion_r1129815496)
nit: Might be a smaller diff, and more clear, if this was put into the `skip_if_no_previous_releases` function?
🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: Flatten miniwallet array and remove random fee in longpoll"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26996)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26996)
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "test: skip all backward compatibility tests under valgrind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27228#discussion_r1129816790)
Thought about that, but there may other (future) tests we want to skip under valgrind (e.g. things that use a brittle dependency). Conversely, since some of tests _do_ work, maybe someone want to enable one later.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27228#discussion_r1129816790)
Thought about that, but there may other (future) tests we want to skip under valgrind (e.g. things that use a brittle dependency). Conversely, since some of tests _do_ work, maybe someone want to enable one later.
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "test: skip all backward compatibility tests under valgrind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27228#discussion_r1129816793)
Yea. If they are all going to be disabled in that case any way, no point duplicating all this logic and commentary.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27228#discussion_r1129816793)
Yea. If they are all going to be disabled in that case any way, no point duplicating all this logic and commentary.
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "test: skip all backward compatibility tests under valgrind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27228#discussion_r1129822563)
I was also thinking existing tests, e.g. I haven't been able to run valgrind with BDB configured (didn't try very hard).
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27228#discussion_r1129822563)
I was also thinking existing tests, e.g. I haven't been able to run valgrind with BDB configured (didn't try very hard).
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "test: skip all backward compatibility tests under valgrind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27228#discussion_r1129819763)
> (future) tests we want to skip under valgrind
Let's not worry about unwritten tests, that we apparently might not want to test properly for some arbitrary reason.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27228#discussion_r1129819763)
> (future) tests we want to skip under valgrind
Let's not worry about unwritten tests, that we apparently might not want to test properly for some arbitrary reason.
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "test: skip all backward compatibility tests under valgrind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27228#discussion_r1129828491)
> I was also thinking existing tests, e.g. I haven't been able to run valgrind with BDB configured (didn't try very hard).
It definitely works. The native valgrind CI job is already configured to run with BDB.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27228#discussion_r1129828491)
> I was also thinking existing tests, e.g. I haven't been able to run valgrind with BDB configured (didn't try very hard).
It definitely works. The native valgrind CI job is already configured to run with BDB.
💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "doc: docment json rpc endpoints":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27225#discussion_r1129850950)
If this gets merged before #27101, remind me to update to `2.0` ;-)
Technically I think `jsonrpc:"1.0"` isn't necessary and doesn't actually do anything.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27225#discussion_r1129850950)
If this gets merged before #27101, remind me to update to `2.0` ;-)
Technically I think `jsonrpc:"1.0"` isn't necessary and doesn't actually do anything.
💬 kristapsk commented on pull request "doc: docment json rpc endpoints":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27225#issuecomment-1460633707)
Nit - there is typo in commit message / PR title (s/docment/document/).
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27225#issuecomment-1460633707)
Nit - there is typo in commit message / PR title (s/docment/document/).
💬 kristapsk commented on pull request "doc: docment json rpc endpoints":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27225#issuecomment-1460632028)
Concept ACK
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27225#issuecomment-1460632028)
Concept ACK
💬 pinheadmz commented on issue ""error reading from database. shutting down"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22426#issuecomment-1460635449)
@ntherrien is this still an issue for you? Did you try anything else that worked?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22426#issuecomment-1460635449)
@ntherrien is this still an issue for you? Did you try anything else that worked?
💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "OS-specific background service for bitcoind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9005#issuecomment-1460657175)
Was this solved by https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21007 ? I think that PR removed `daemon()` from the codebase. I run macOS 12.3.1 and don't have any issues running with `bitcoind -daemon`
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9005#issuecomment-1460657175)
Was this solved by https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21007 ? I think that PR removed `daemon()` from the codebase. I run macOS 12.3.1 and don't have any issues running with `bitcoind -daemon`
💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "OS-specific background service for bitcoind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9005#issuecomment-1460702016)
Closing for now. Can be reopened if this is still an issue.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9005#issuecomment-1460702016)
Closing for now. Can be reopened if this is still an issue.
✅ MarcoFalke closed an issue: "OS-specific background service for bitcoind"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9005)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9005)
💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue ""error reading from database. shutting down"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22426#issuecomment-1460703843)
Is this an external hard drive? Otherwise:
Bitcoin Core makes heavy use of CPU, RAM and disk IO. Hardware defects might only become visible when running Bitcoin Core. You might want to check your hardware for defects.
* memtest86 to check your RAM
* to check the CPU behaviour under load, use linpack or Prime95
* to test your storage device use smartctl or CrystalDiskInfo
Source: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/12206
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22426#issuecomment-1460703843)
Is this an external hard drive? Otherwise:
Bitcoin Core makes heavy use of CPU, RAM and disk IO. Hardware defects might only become visible when running Bitcoin Core. You might want to check your hardware for defects.
* memtest86 to check your RAM
* to check the CPU behaviour under load, use linpack or Prime95
* to test your storage device use smartctl or CrystalDiskInfo
Source: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/12206
💬 Ayms commented on issue "Allow several OP_RETURN in one tx and no limited size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27043#issuecomment-1460704159)
Cool, I am a bit like @ChristopherA probably , even if still operating a bitcoin node that I did compile myself (+ some slight modifications for testing), I did not work on it since years
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27043#issuecomment-1460704159)
Cool, I am a bit like @ChristopherA probably , even if still operating a bitcoin node that I did compile myself (+ some slight modifications for testing), I did not work on it since years
💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Many sendcmpct messages are sent during UpdateActiveChain()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21903#issuecomment-1460734624)
> IsIBD() should be changed to return true while the Tip is still far behind the best known header
`IsInitialBlockDownload()` also checks if the timestamp in the tip is less than 24 hours old (`DEFAULT_MAX_TIP_AGE`) which I think means that at most we're probably only sending around 144 `sendcmpct` before we really need to.
I used `invalidateblock`/`reconsiderblock` to re-enter IBD and re-download the last 1000 blocks with net logging, and the only `sendcmpct` messages I saw go out were to
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21903#issuecomment-1460734624)
> IsIBD() should be changed to return true while the Tip is still far behind the best known header
`IsInitialBlockDownload()` also checks if the timestamp in the tip is less than 24 hours old (`DEFAULT_MAX_TIP_AGE`) which I think means that at most we're probably only sending around 144 `sendcmpct` before we really need to.
I used `invalidateblock`/`reconsiderblock` to re-enter IBD and re-download the last 1000 blocks with net logging, and the only `sendcmpct` messages I saw go out were to
...
💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Doc: Consolidate documentation of functional test parameters.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17380#issuecomment-1460742502)
> Hi @jachiang, I have a few test runner improvement PRs written last July that I was thinking of opening at some point
@jonatack did this happen? ;-)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17380#issuecomment-1460742502)
> Hi @jachiang, I have a few test runner improvement PRs written last July that I was thinking of opening at some point
@jonatack did this happen? ;-)
💬 ntherrien commented on issue ""error reading from database. shutting down"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22426#issuecomment-1460751900)
Hi, thanks for looking into this over-a-year-old issue.
About the hardware defects suggestion, I remember trying it on two different computers and had the same issue. Likelihood of a hardware issue is very low in my opinion because im still using both computers a year later with other intensive tasks.
As for whether or not this would still be an issue in a newer version, I could not say because I abandoned that project because I could not get it running properly. I would have to try again
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22426#issuecomment-1460751900)
Hi, thanks for looking into this over-a-year-old issue.
About the hardware defects suggestion, I remember trying it on two different computers and had the same issue. Likelihood of a hardware issue is very low in my opinion because im still using both computers a year later with other intensive tasks.
As for whether or not this would still be an issue in a newer version, I could not say because I abandoned that project because I could not get it running properly. I would have to try again
...
💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Mac OS latest Bitcoin core latest release will not run as Mac OS, "you can't open the application 'Bitcoin core'"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25834#issuecomment-1460754246)
I think this is essentially a duplicate of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15774
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25834#issuecomment-1460754246)
I think this is essentially a duplicate of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15774