💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "interfaces: #30697 follow ups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30828#discussion_r1755134235)
In commit "chain: simplify `deleteRwSettings` code and improve it's doc" (84663291275248fd52da644b0c2566bbf9cc780b)
Might be good to say in commit message that this change is a refactoring and does not change behavior. Could have "refactor:" prefix in the title.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30828#discussion_r1755134235)
In commit "chain: simplify `deleteRwSettings` code and improve it's doc" (84663291275248fd52da644b0c2566bbf9cc780b)
Might be good to say in commit message that this change is a refactoring and does not change behavior. Could have "refactor:" prefix in the title.
👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "interfaces: #30697 follow ups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30828#pullrequestreview-2297841266)
Code review ACK 84663291275248fd52da644b0c2566bbf9cc780b. Looks good, thanks for taking suggestions and applying them to the right commits. Only changes since last review were documentation improvements and simplifying delete method.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30828#pullrequestreview-2297841266)
Code review ACK 84663291275248fd52da644b0c2566bbf9cc780b. Looks good, thanks for taking suggestions and applying them to the right commits. Only changes since last review were documentation improvements and simplifying delete method.
💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "interfaces: #30697 follow ups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30828#discussion_r1755133114)
In commit "chain: dont check for null settings value in `overwriteRwSetting`" (f8d91f49c7091102138fcb123850399e8fadfbc7)
Might be good to say in commit message that this change is a refactoring and does not change behavior. Could have "refactor:" prefix in the title.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30828#discussion_r1755133114)
In commit "chain: dont check for null settings value in `overwriteRwSetting`" (f8d91f49c7091102138fcb123850399e8fadfbc7)
Might be good to say in commit message that this change is a refactoring and does not change behavior. Could have "refactor:" prefix in the title.
💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "interfaces: #30697 follow ups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30828#discussion_r1755152446)
thanks will do if there is need to retouch.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30828#discussion_r1755152446)
thanks will do if there is need to retouch.
💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "interfaces: #30697 follow ups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30828#discussion_r1755154932)
I will do it when their is need to retouch.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30828#discussion_r1755154932)
I will do it when their is need to retouch.
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Add more cmake presets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30871#issuecomment-2344163054)
review ACK 1171871f63261e0c06d34baf216a54bfa747d75f
Seems fine to add recommended presets for common stuff like development or fuzzing.
Nit: Add `build:` prefix to pull request title and remove "CI" mention from the pull request description?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30871#issuecomment-2344163054)
review ACK 1171871f63261e0c06d34baf216a54bfa747d75f
Seems fine to add recommended presets for common stuff like development or fuzzing.
Nit: Add `build:` prefix to pull request title and remove "CI" mention from the pull request description?
💬 sipa commented on pull request "Add more cmake presets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30871#issuecomment-2344184241)
> Nit: Add `build:` prefix to pull request title and remove "CI" mention from the pull request description?
Done.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30871#issuecomment-2344184241)
> Nit: Add `build:` prefix to pull request title and remove "CI" mention from the pull request description?
Done.
💬 tdb3 commented on issue "28.0 RC Testing Guide Feedback":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30854#issuecomment-2344216440)
The guide is looking great!
I dry ran it through the `2. V3 Transactions TRUC` section so far. Love how the guide explains the "why" and "what" is being done before steps are executed.
Some minor suggestions below:
### `1. Testnet4 Support`
- The user starts bitcoind with testnet4, but `2. V3 Transactions TRUC`, uses regtest. Could add a statement telling the user to stop the nodes and something in the beginning of the next section to start for regtest.
### `2. V3 Transactions TRU
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30854#issuecomment-2344216440)
The guide is looking great!
I dry ran it through the `2. V3 Transactions TRUC` section so far. Love how the guide explains the "why" and "what" is being done before steps are executed.
Some minor suggestions below:
### `1. Testnet4 Support`
- The user starts bitcoind with testnet4, but `2. V3 Transactions TRUC`, uses regtest. Could add a statement telling the user to stop the nodes and something in the beginning of the next section to start for regtest.
### `2. V3 Transactions TRU
...
👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "build: Add more cmake presets"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30871#pullrequestreview-2297996310)
Code review ACK f15e817811e328423ea489870ead089128a6ef8c. This change is much needed to simplify my command line.
Could consider the name "all" or "enable-all" for the preset, and "build_all" for the directory name, but current "dev-mode" and "build_dev_mode" also seems ok.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30871#pullrequestreview-2297996310)
Code review ACK f15e817811e328423ea489870ead089128a6ef8c. This change is much needed to simplify my command line.
Could consider the name "all" or "enable-all" for the preset, and "build_all" for the directory name, but current "dev-mode" and "build_dev_mode" also seems ok.
👍 pablomartin4btc approved a pull request: "build: Fix `ENABLE_WALLET` option"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30867#pullrequestreview-2297998037)
tACK 0037d53d1a21ec8a5a97a83ab716d68030446021
Also checked building depends with `NO_WALLET`.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30867#pullrequestreview-2297998037)
tACK 0037d53d1a21ec8a5a97a83ab716d68030446021
Also checked building depends with `NO_WALLET`.
👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "util: Use consteval checked format string in FatalErrorf, LogConnectFailure"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30546#pullrequestreview-2298007577)
Code review ACK fa26462e95291652b4021d91b014655f678149e8. Just new tests and comments since last review
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30546#pullrequestreview-2298007577)
Code review ACK fa26462e95291652b4021d91b014655f678149e8. Just new tests and comments since last review
💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "refactor: migrate `bool GetCoin` to return `optional<Coin>`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30849#discussion_r1755184675)
I don't think we should be changing all these lines in this commit just for updating the style. It muddies the git blame.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30849#discussion_r1755184675)
I don't think we should be changing all these lines in this commit just for updating the style. It muddies the git blame.
💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "refactor: migrate `bool GetCoin` to return `optional<Coin>`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30849#discussion_r1755179261)
This part `Coins whose output index is 4 (mod 5) have GetCoin() always succeed after being spent` is due to us not erasing these coins with this condition on line 169 below. Since we are not yet not returning spent coins (`// TODO GetCoin shouldn't return spent coins`), we shouldn't remove this line of the comment.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30849#discussion_r1755179261)
This part `Coins whose output index is 4 (mod 5) have GetCoin() always succeed after being spent` is due to us not erasing these coins with this condition on line 169 below. Since we are not yet not returning spent coins (`// TODO GetCoin shouldn't return spent coins`), we shouldn't remove this line of the comment.
💬 sipa commented on pull request "build: Add more cmake presets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30871#issuecomment-2344249910)
@ryanofsky I picked the name to match the same thing in [libsecp256k1](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/blob/v0.5.1/CMakePresets.json#L6), but I'm okay with "enable-all" or "all" as well.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30871#issuecomment-2344249910)
@ryanofsky I picked the name to match the same thing in [libsecp256k1](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/blob/v0.5.1/CMakePresets.json#L6), but I'm okay with "enable-all" or "all" as well.
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Allow `CScript`'s `operator<<` to accept spans, not just vectors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30765#discussion_r1755195956)
Is there a reason to extract those function? I think it would be better to not extract them, because:
* The diff would be smaller
* They are only used and called once
* There shouldn't be a reason for them to be called from somewhere else internally, because `operator<<` is available internally and externally
* If someone wanted to use them externally (for whatever reason), they'd have to be moved again, because they are private right now.
Seems easier to extract them and possibly make
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30765#discussion_r1755195956)
Is there a reason to extract those function? I think it would be better to not extract them, because:
* The diff would be smaller
* They are only used and called once
* There shouldn't be a reason for them to be called from somewhere else internally, because `operator<<` is available internally and externally
* If someone wanted to use them externally (for whatever reason), they'd have to be moved again, because they are private right now.
Seems easier to extract them and possibly make
...
🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "Fix peers abruptly disconnecting from AssumeUTXO nodes during IBD"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30807#pullrequestreview-2298031257)
ACK 992f83bb6f4b29b44f4eaace1d1a2c0001d43cac
> Updated the commit description. Let me know if further updates are needed.
Looks good to me!
> What about us connecting to a synced limited peer, during tip sync, who tries to fetch historical blocks due to the NODE_NETWORK service, like https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29183.
I think we just wouldn't connect to limited peers during tip sync - only when we are very close to the global tip we accept those as outbound peers (`GetDes
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30807#pullrequestreview-2298031257)
ACK 992f83bb6f4b29b44f4eaace1d1a2c0001d43cac
> Updated the commit description. Let me know if further updates are needed.
Looks good to me!
> What about us connecting to a synced limited peer, during tip sync, who tries to fetch historical blocks due to the NODE_NETWORK service, like https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29183.
I think we just wouldn't connect to limited peers during tip sync - only when we are very close to the global tip we accept those as outbound peers (`GetDes
...
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "docs: updated developer notes for --with-sanitizers to -DSANITIZERS":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30870#issuecomment-2344256749)
ACK 4b1ce3cac81497dd094e8c34550edf633f4d38ae
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30870#issuecomment-2344256749)
ACK 4b1ce3cac81497dd094e8c34550edf633f4d38ae
🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "docs: updated developer notes for --with-sanitizers to -DSANITIZERS"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30870)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30870)
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "docs: Updated debug build instructions for cmake":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30840#issuecomment-2344260817)
ACK 0b003e1ff7e09b56cd013b15f1998495994b7211
TIL `ccmake`.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30840#issuecomment-2344260817)
ACK 0b003e1ff7e09b56cd013b15f1998495994b7211
TIL `ccmake`.
🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "docs: Updated debug build instructions for cmake"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30840)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30840)