💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Support self-hosted Cirrus workers on forks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29274#discussion_r1647853364)
What I remember from a while ago, but I haven't retested, is that under a pull request all the checks initially are marked as skipped. But then they show as either finished or failed as the results come in. It was rather flaky.

I could try again and make some screenshots...

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "fuzz: wallet: add target for `CreateTransaction`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29936#issuecomment-2181120807)
Rebased

💬 m3dwards commented on pull request "ci: add option for running tests without volume":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30310#issuecomment-2181122781)
> Oh, I guess only master creates the cache?

Branches on forks work, see cache restore here: https://github.com/m3dwards/bitcoin/actions/runs/9601151359/job/26479048839

👋 m3dwards's pull request is ready for review: "ci: add option for running tests without volume"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30310)

💬 m3dwards commented on pull request "ci: add option for running tests without volume":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30310#issuecomment-2181126299)
Nits should be addresses @maflcko

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Support self-hosted Cirrus workers on forks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29274#discussion_r1647869054)
Glad I checked this, because the glitched described here is no longer happening:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29274#issuecomment-1967030916

💬 m3dwards commented on pull request "ci: add option for running tests without volume":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30310#issuecomment-2181148450)
This job has a ccache size limit of 100mb, the MacOS job has a ccache limit of 400m. @hebasto is there something specific to MacOS for why the ccache limit is higher there?

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Support self-hosted Cirrus workers on forks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29274#discussion_r1647880221)
> I could try again and make some screenshots...

Thanks, I wouldn't make an extra effort to understand the broken behavior you were trying to avoid. But maybe consider dropping the word "initially" because I think the comment would make more sense without it. The idea of not avoiding "skip" directive to avoid tests showing up as "skipped" is fairly clear. It's just not clear why they tests might initially show up as skipped but then later show up not skipped, if that's what happens.

It mi
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Support self-hosted Cirrus workers on forks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29274#issuecomment-2181152033)
Simplified c02d96f8f5829d433f4a061480aa37ee0c6ff076 because the UI glitch I noticed by in February no longer happens. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29274#discussion_r1647869054

Rebased on #30314, so will temporarily mark this PR as draft.

📝 Sjors converted_to_draft a pull request: "Support self-hosted Cirrus workers on forks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29274)
I find myself making pull requests against my fork (mostly on top of #28983), or asking others to do so. Currently only the Github actions are run on forks, because we use self-hosted runners for the Cirrus tasks.

While setting up my own self-hosted runners for my fork, I ran into a number of issues. This PR addresses those.

Some issues are related to me using multiple regular users on the same physical machine, rather than running every worker in a VM. Update: these fixes have been absorb
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "net_processing: make any misbehavior trigger immediate discouragement":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29575#issuecomment-2181181414)
ACK 6eecba475efd025eb011400af58621ad5823994e

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "test: Validate oversized transactions or without inputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29862#issuecomment-2181185669)
ACK 969e047cfbab86e5819a2c9056e8d2dab17513a8

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "netbase: extend CreateSock() to support creating arbitrary sockets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30202#issuecomment-2181186879)
ACK 1245d1388b003c46092937def7041917aecec8de

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "net_processing: make any misbehavior trigger immediate discouragement"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29575)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "test: Validate oversized transactions or without inputs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29862)

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "test: Validate oversized transactions or without inputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29862#issuecomment-2181209430)
Thanks for the reviews!

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "netbase: extend CreateSock() to support creating arbitrary sockets"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30202)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "doc: clarify Cirrus self-hosted workers setup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30314#discussion_r1647945840)
> I don't know if it works out of the box for every distro out there

That's fine. Just assume it does until we know otherwise.

👍 theuni approved a pull request: "contrib: add R(UN)PATH check to ELF symbol-check"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30312#pullrequestreview-2131062085)
utACK 4289dd02cce688a69c596f7cd5e47f831b00aa1b

💬 itornaza commented on pull request "Introduce Mining interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30200#discussion_r1647945526)
non-blocking nit: In case you revise this file for a more serious reason, maybe consider adding an empty line here for more readability and consistence with the rest of this source file.