💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "test: Add a few more corner cases to the base58 test suite":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30035#discussion_r1594600115)
Valid concern, I also testes it to understand why it was done differently

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "test: Add a few more corner cases to the base58 test suite":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30035#discussion_r1594602235)
Thanks for your detailed review, will do that this week

💬 cbergqvist commented on pull request "net: Favor peers from addrman over fetching seednodes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29605#discussion_r1594614105)
Still failing on 1ed818a35d78a5bf6eaf0f72f3730041913b4859 for me.
[29605_timeout_1ed818a.combined_log.gz](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/files/15254533/29605_timeout_1ed818a.combined_log.gz)

### Excerpts

Startup:
```
test 2024-05-08T20:37:27.879000Z TestFramework (INFO): PRNG seed is: 2801220528353188963
test 2024-05-08T20:37:27.879000Z TestFramework (DEBUG): Setting up network thread
```
~8 seconds later we make the attempt to connect to the bogus IP:
```
node0 2024-05-08T
...

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "net: Favor peers from addrman over fetching seednodes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29605#discussion_r1594643915)
That's interesting. I guess it's still too close.

```
node0 2024-05-08T20:37:35.200946Z [opencon] [net.cpp:2501] [ThreadOpenConnections] Fixed seeds are disabled
node0 2024-05-08T20:37:35.254287Z [http] [httpserver.cpp:306] [http_request_cb] [http] Received a POST request for / from 127.0.0.1:60322
node0 2024-05-08T20:37:35.254724Z [httpworker.0] [rpc/request.cpp:187] [parse] [rpc] ThreadRPCServer method=getblockcount user=__cookie__
node0 2024-05-08T20:37:35.256529Z [http] [httpserve
...

📝 instagibbs opened a pull request: "test: add conflicting topology test case"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30066)
We want to ensure that even if topologies
that are acceptable are relaxed, like
removing package-not-child-with-unconfirmed-parents, that we don't end up accepting packages we shouldn't.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "test: add conflicting topology test case":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30066#issuecomment-2101470172)
cc @glozow

💬 cbergqvist commented on pull request "Support JSON-RPC 2.0 when requested by client":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27101#discussion_r1594702190)
Had to check whether `UniValue` even had a move-constructor. It seems like one should be generated implicitly if my readings of https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/move_constructor#Implicitly-declared_move_constructor and `univalue.h` are correct.

@ryanofsky's explanation rings true with my long underutilized C++11 neurons.

💬 edilmedeiros commented on pull request "test: Add a few more corner cases to the base58 test suite":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30035#discussion_r1594704577)
Looks more like a typo, see lines 67 and 78.

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "rpc: parse legacy pubkeys consistently with specific error messages"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28336)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "net: don't lock cs_main while reading blocks in net processing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26326#issuecomment-2101570625)
ACK 75d27fefc7a04ebdda7be5724a014b6a896e7325

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "net: don't lock cs_main while reading blocks in net processing"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26326)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "test: Handle functional test disk-full error":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29335#issuecomment-2101580377)
reACK 357ad110548d726021547d85b5b2bfcf3191d7e3

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Handle disk-full more gracefully in functional tests"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23099)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "test: Handle functional test disk-full error"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29335)

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "blockstorage: Separate reindexing from saving new blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29975#discussion_r1594766043)
I extended the comment according to suggestion above.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "blockstorage: Separate reindexing from saving new blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29975#discussion_r1594766203)
Done

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "blockstorage: Separate reindexing from saving new blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29975#discussion_r1594767022)
Added the assumptions.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "blockstorage: Separate reindexing from saving new blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29975#discussion_r1594767896)
I added a clarification.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "blockstorage: Separate reindexing from saving new blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29975#discussion_r1594768464)
Renamed to `UpdateBlockInfo`

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "blockstorage: Separate reindexing from saving new blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29975#discussion_r1594768654)
done