✅ 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

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "blockstorage: Separate reindexing from saving new blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29975#discussion_r1594769886)
fixed

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "blockstorage: Separate reindexing from saving new blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29975#issuecomment-2101607833)
Thanks for the detailed review @ryanofsky!
With the latest push, I addressed the feedback partially, see in particular https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29975#discussion_r1594531344. I will address the remaining comments soon.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "rpc: improve submitpackage documentation and other improvements":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29292#issuecomment-2101608014)
ACK 78e52f663f3e3ac86260b913dad777fd7218f210

👍 cbergqvist approved a pull request: "cli: Detect port errors in rpcconnect and rpcport"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29521#pullrequestreview-2046768298)
reACK 867a673bcfd3ca254c306d8cf0c68d4ceb163f97

Inspected `git range-diff cb4f9fc~2..cb4f9fc 867a673~2..867a673`.

Passed `--extended` functional tests (-`feature_dbcrash`, excluded, some others skipped due to configuration). Passed `make check`.

💬 cbergqvist commented on pull request "cli: Detect port errors in rpcconnect and rpcport":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29521#discussion_r1594717462)
(IMO it's slightly cleaner to split the test into `--ipv4` and `--ipv6` variants similar to `rpc_bind.py`, that way it becomes explicit whether that part of the test coverage is being skipped or not. This being more of a parsing-test, I guess it is not on the critical end of the spectrum. Also it's just a minor part of `interface_bitcoin_cli.py` so I completely understand the resistance to breaking it out).

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "rpc: improve submitpackage documentation and other improvements"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29292)

💬 IAmAdamRest commented on issue "Possible to Ban Clients by Name?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30036#issuecomment-2101665505)
Pretty trashy to delete a message urging others with the same issue to contact the local secret service office, they are VERY aware of this issue. I wouldn't have known that comment was made had you guys not deleted it... have something to hide?

💬 IAmAdamRest commented on issue "Possible to Ban Clients by Name?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30036#issuecomment-2101677490)
Ya'll are being so shady with this. I hope you know the secret service has found one of the core developers to be doing something highly illegal here and they are so dang close to coming down on ya'll for it.

:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "Possible to Ban Clients by Name?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30036)

⚠️ gmart7t2 opened an issue: "decoderawtransaction should use hex or decimal, not both"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30067)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

I have two different op_return outputs, but they are shown identically in their "asm" decoding:

```
"scriptPubKey": {
"asm": "OP_RETURN 1431655765",
"hex": "6a051431655765",
}
```

```
"scriptPubKey": {
"asm": "OP_RETURN 1431655765",
"hex": "6a0455555555",
}
```

One shows the hex value. The other shows the decimal va
...

💬 sipa commented on issue "decoderawtransaction should use hex or decimal, not both":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30067#issuecomment-2101692041)
Duplicate of #27795 ?

📝 kevkevinpal opened a pull request: "test: assert can't activate snapshot based chainstate more than once"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30068)
In ActivateSnapshot we return false if there already exists a snapshot-based chainstate this is a test that asserts that happens

This adds coverage to [this part of the codebase](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L5477)