💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Introduce waitTipChanged() mining interface, replace RPCNotifyBlockChange, drop CRPCSignals & g_best_block":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30409#issuecomment-2348352540)
Trivial `#include` rebase after #30546.

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "streams: cache file position within AutoFile":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30884#issuecomment-2348369701)
crACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30884/commits/4cfff4e58c6d806e4bc5a12386f84ff207c83419

Awesome! My testing (n=2) indicates that this branch solves the Windows IBD regression reported in #30833.

In my bench runs your branch cherry picked on 28.x took 3% more wall clock time than 27.1rc1 (3% is smaller than the fluctuations I observed during runs on the same branch), but `v28rc1` took 112% more time to reach block 300k than 27.1.

I left a nit and some out-of-scope observati
...

💬 hebasto commented on issue "GUI event loop should be block free":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17145#issuecomment-2348369864)
> qt has a tool that will build on android with qmake. not sure how much work this would be, but it's doable. ffiw
> […](#)
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2024, 4:57 AM maflcko ***@***.***> wrote: Ok, and Android support was blocked on cmake or qt6, or was it both? (Sorry for using this thread, but I couldn't find the tracking issue). — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <[#17145 (comment)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17145#issuecomment-2346089167)>, or unsubscribe <https://githu
...

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "test: remove unused src_dir param from run_tests after CMake migration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30733#issuecomment-2348406588)
@fanquake thanks for catching,

post-merge ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30733/commits/2ad560139b80e149844f285cd1456bb7cc0eb1ee

👍 pablomartin4btc approved a pull request: "Fix crash when closing wallet"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/835#pullrequestreview-2302553051)
tACK a965f2bc07a3588f8c2b8d6a542961562e3f5d0e

Tested on Linux, I've reproduced the segfault on both "Close Walllet" and "Close All Wallets" actions from the File menu items and this PR fixes it and related features work as expected (eg closing a wallet will remove it from the top right combo when multi wallets are loaded).

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Introduce ensure helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30893#issuecomment-2348437857)
```
test 2024-09-13T08:23:13.856000Z TestFramework (ERROR): Unexpected exception caught during testing
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/ci_container_base/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 132, in main
self.run_test()
File "/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build-i686-pc-linux-gnu/test/functional/feature_minchainwork
...

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "test: Check already deactivated network stays suspended after dumptxoutset":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30892#discussion_r1758502373)
Seems like we don't have a test for that explicitly. It's handled by `ParseHashOrHeight()` which used in other RPCs and is covered in other tests but still would be good to have it for `dumptxoutset`. Do you want to open a PR for that @pablomartin4btc ? Otherwise, I can add it here.

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "build: add `standard branch-protection` to hardening flags for aarch64-linux"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30433#pullrequestreview-2302613161)
ACK 0bb8cdbe8cf1d634fb6555913dc9b498c95aeee1

master:
```bash
/usr/bin/aarch64-linux-gnu-readelf --notes build/src/CMakeFiles/bitcoind.dir/init/bitcoind.cpp.o

Displaying notes found in: .note.gnu.property
Owner Data size Description
GNU 0x00000010 NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0
Properties: AArch64 feature: BTI
```
This PR:
```bash
/usr/bin/aarch64-linux-gnu-readelf --notes build_b/src/CMakeFiles/bitcoind.dir/init/bitcoind.cpp.o

Displaying notes
...

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "CI timeouts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30851#issuecomment-2348489523)
> I recreated a CI timeout and the machine's CPU was idle flat at 0% for most of the part for 2 hours, but I didn't look where it spent so much time "doing nothing".

I have noticed this in the cirrus GUI before, it seems to have always been like this though IIRC:

e.g. https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6481793086390272 :

or a random pre-cmake run: https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6010695337115648

Perhaps the
...

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "test: Check already deactivated network stays suspended after dumptxoutset":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30892#discussion_r1758531772)
I can open a new PR to test the rollback type option with both a valid and invalid heights. I'll do as soon as this one gets merged. Thanks.

💬 hebasto commented on issue "CI timeouts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30851#issuecomment-2348497540)
> 20 - 75s is waiting for these to complete:
>
> 133/134 Test #5: noverify_tests ....................... Passed 36.41 sec
> 134/134 Test #6: tests ................................ Passed 76.79 sec

This part is addressed in https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1581.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "rpc, rest: Improve block rpc error handling, check header before attempting to read block data.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30410#discussion_r1758554116)
More or a question: when `check_for_undo` is true doe we actually want to check for both? Having undo and not data set here would seem to be something going weirdly wrong though I guess.

```suggestion
uint32_t flag = check_for_undo ? BLOCK_HAVE_MASK : BLOCK_HAVE_DATA;
```

💬 maflcko commented on issue "CI timeouts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30851#issuecomment-2348524416)
> I have noticed this in the cirrus GUI before, it seems to have always been like this though IIRC:

Yeah, I think the graph there are not accurate and a bit misleading. It may be best to ignore them. I used a `CPX51` Hetzner Box with 16 vCPU, which should be enough to run any CI task with a completely empty cache. I just looked at the CPU/IO usage in the Cloud Console Graph.

> Perhaps these shared machines are hitting other IO limits? Doesn't seems to be much other explanation for it. Out
...

🤔 pablomartin4btc reviewed a pull request: "doc: unit test runner help fixup"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30890#pullrequestreview-2302673637)
ACK 0024d2c6ea0fafe9b9949af4bbcd0c583e580746

nit: maybe you can add "Run `test_bitcoin --list_content` for the full list of tests." in the previous section "**Compiling/running unit tests**", before the paragraph starting with "_To run the unit tests manually,.._".

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "doc: unit test runner help fixup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30890#issuecomment-2348531789)
Can probably squash, given the single line changed in the first commit, is then deleted/moved in the second commit.

🤔 fjahr reviewed a pull request: "rpc, rest: Improve block rpc error handling, check header before attempting to read block data."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30410#pullrequestreview-2302677474)
Code review ACK a5df908d981138f066f5f963a1813d453483814a

Feel free to ignore typo comments unless you retouch.

Also saw a typo in 8bfb0bd7bd5f8963fb1f58988f9bb36199dc98de: "dowloaded"

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "rpc, rest: Improve block rpc error handling, check header before attempting to read block data.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30410#discussion_r1758559803)
typo: corruption

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "rpc, rest: Improve block rpc error handling, check header before attempting to read block data.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30410#discussion_r1758560350)
typo: corruption

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "rpc, rest: Improve block rpc error handling, check header before attempting to read block data.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30410#discussion_r1758560653)
typo: corruption

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "fuzz: Test headers pre-sync through p2p":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30661#issuecomment-2348545844)
Ping also @mzumsande, given you [expressed some reservations](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28043#pullrequestreview-1846077000) to this approach last time.