💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: cleanup of CI_EXEC & CI_EXEC_ROOT (refs #27321)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27333#discussion_r1150154401)
> whether I should do the same for pip3

You are already doing what I suggested for pip3, which is why I left the comment here. I think it makes sense to use the same approach for all three pkg managers (dnf, apt, pip3)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: fix intermittent failure in ChainStateManager tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27348#issuecomment-1486375282)
lgtm ACK f8abcb3e3b2e731c002ec88f7559c21e26a2c079

👋 ismaelsadeeq's pull request is ready for review: "test: use address_to_scriptpubkey instead of RPC call"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27349)

💬 josibake commented on pull request "refactor: Remove CAddressBookData::destdata":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27224#discussion_r1150232826)
Perhaps there's some nuance that I'm missing, but it seems strange to have this be `Span<std::byte>` when the rest of the methods take `DataStream&&`. I changed the `ErasePrefix` method to also take `DataStream&&` as an argument and was able to compile and pass the tests. Seems like it would be preferable to match the other methods unless you have a reason to prefer `Span<std::byte>`?

💬 josibake commented on pull request "refactor: Remove CAddressBookData::destdata":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27224#discussion_r1150238393)
as part of changing `ErasePrefix` to accept a `DataStream&&`, I also changed this line:

```suggestion
return m_batch->ErasePrefix(DataStream(prefix));
```

to make this an `rvalue`. might be a cleaner way to do this

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "guix: use GCC tool wrappers"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27345)
ACK [4133c81](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27345/commits/4133c8104f522c403c55d26bd03436a8149ff106)

> Split out, to try move things along, as this change is isolated, and should be straight-forward.

Is there a reason for the LTO PR being bogged down?

```
find guix-build-$(git rev-parse --short=12 HEAD)/output/ -type f -print0 | env LC_ALL=C sort -z | xargs -r0 sha256sum
df90584fe5c1c68ec6a547ba04b81b66fae61035d5d4b586bc2c70f19176bc62 guix-build-4133c8104f52/output/aarch64-
...

⚠️ fanquake opened an issue: "test: failure in feature_notifications.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27352)
https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6373158677118976:
```bash
node1 2023-03-27T18:58:04.542245Z [C:\Users\ContainerAdministrator\AppData\Local\Temp\cirrus-ci-build\src\rpc\request.cpp:179] [parse] [rpc] ThreadRPCServer method=syncwithvalidationinterfacequeue user=__cookie__
test 2023-03-27T18:58:04.597000Z TestFramework (ERROR): Unexpected exception caught during testing
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "C:\Users\Co
...

👋 MarcoFalke's pull request is ready for review: "ci: Use TSan new runtime (llvm-16, take 3)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27298)

💬 jnewbery commented on pull request "net: #27257 follow-ups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27324#discussion_r1150334044)
This is absolutely fine. I would have gone for something like "For performance reasons, once we've deserialized the bytes into a CNetMessage, we avoid re-allocating and copying the message as we pass it up the stack for processing. Delete the copy ctor/assignment to avoid accidentally introducing a copy operation.", which is more-or-less the same as what you came up with.

💬 jnewbery commented on pull request "net: #27257 follow-ups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27324#issuecomment-1486557249)
utACK cd0c8eeb0940790b6ba83786d1c9e362d4dc4829

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "fuzz: Remove legacy int parse fuzz tests"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27344)
ACK faf8dc496e761a15956f8226d727f4bbab8dff82

👍 dergoegge approved a pull request: "fuzz: Remove legacy int parse fuzz tests"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27344)
ACK faf8dc496e761a15956f8226d727f4bbab8dff82

📝 TheCharlatan opened a pull request: "refactor (tidy): Fixes after enable-debug configure"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27353)
This diff can be reproduced by running (tested with clang-14 and clang-15):

```
./autogen.sh && CC=clang CXX=clang++ ./configure --enable-suppress-external-warnings --enable-debug
bear --config src/.bear-tidy-config -- make -j $(nproc)
cd ./src/ && run-clang-tidy -quiet -fix -j $(nproc)
```

This pull request is set to draft, since I still don't know why `--enable-debug` allows tidy to catch this additional lint (performance-for-range-copy). Any pointers would be appreciated. The same l
...

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "test_bitcoin: ./chain.h:261: uint256 CBlockIndex::GetBlockHash() const: Assertion `phashBlock != nullptr' failed."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27320)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: fix intermittent failure in ChainStateManager tests"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27348)

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "test: use address_to_scriptpubkey instead of RPC call":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27349#discussion_r1150368780)
Yes.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "test: use address_to_scriptpubkey instead of RPC call":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27349#discussion_r1150370139)
Thanks.

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "ci: Use TSan new runtime (llvm-16, take 3)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27298)
ACK faf4aca15a319a26aaec7127455f6db97c7039cc - I still see [this](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27298#issuecomment-1480041089) failure on aarch64, but that isn't really a regression, as running this tests was already broken for me. I'll open a separate issue, and we can follow up.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: refactor: dedup mempool_package_limits.py subtests via decorator":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27350#discussion_r1150385623)
Ah nice. But might as well just make it this?
```suggestion
high_fee = target_weight * 10
```

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: refactor: dedup mempool_package_limits.py subtests via decorator":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27350#discussion_r1150382620)
(1) I think it could be useful to clarify that the subtest modifies mempool and creates the txns
(2) I prefer to reserve the term "submit" for sendraw and submitpackage

```suggestion
# 2) run the subtest, which may submit some transaction(s) to the mempool and create a list of hex transactions
# 3) testmempoolaccept the package hex and check that it fails with the error "package-mempool-limits" for each tx
# 4) after mining a block, clearing the pre-submitted transactions from mempool, su
...