💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "p2p: When close to the tip, download blocks in parallel from additional peers to prevent stalling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29664#issuecomment-2358747706)
> The CI failed, but the logs are missing :( I'll re-run 10 times.
Thanks, I can also reproduce it locally, so no need to do more CI runs!
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29664#issuecomment-2358747706)
> The CI failed, but the logs are missing :( I'll re-run 10 times.
Thanks, I can also reproduce it locally, so no need to do more CI runs!
💬 alfonsoromanz commented on pull request "test: add validation for gettxout RPC response":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30226#issuecomment-2358813435)
> You'll probably have to rebase, as it may be a silent conflict.
Yes, that was it. I've rebased and resolved the conflict. Thanks for your help!
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30226#issuecomment-2358813435)
> You'll probably have to rebase, as it may be a silent conflict.
Yes, that was it. I've rebased and resolved the conflict. Thanks for your help!
💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "fuzz: speed up addrman":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30688#issuecomment-2358839941)
Force-pushed increasing the number of iterations from 100 to 1000 (the original value is 10'000). With this value, I could see faster execs (115 exec/s) and same coverage.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30688#issuecomment-2358839941)
Force-pushed increasing the number of iterations from 100 to 1000 (the original value is 10'000). With this value, I could see faster execs (115 exec/s) and same coverage.
💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "fuzz: speed up addrman":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30688#discussion_r1765317533)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30688#issuecomment-2358839941
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30688#discussion_r1765317533)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30688#issuecomment-2358839941
💬 hebasto commented on issue "Trying to run bitcoin qt on Windows and getting an AV":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30825#issuecomment-2358859393)
I can confirm the issue for the `x64-windows` triplet.
All test pass for the `x64-windows-static` triplet.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30825#issuecomment-2358859393)
I can confirm the issue for the `x64-windows` triplet.
All test pass for the `x64-windows-static` triplet.
🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "cli: Improve error message on multiwallet cli-side commands"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#pullrequestreview-2313157402)
Code Review ACK 54227e681a4efa8961f1ad05d43366d88a9b686a
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#pullrequestreview-2313157402)
Code Review ACK 54227e681a4efa8961f1ad05d43366d88a9b686a
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "doc: fixed inconsistencies in documentation between autotools to cmake change":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30875#issuecomment-2358862096)
utACK a9964c04447745435747d9cc557165c43902783b
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30875#issuecomment-2358862096)
utACK a9964c04447745435747d9cc557165c43902783b
💬 hebasto commented on issue "Trying to run bitcoin qt on Windows and getting an AV":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30825#issuecomment-2358870082)
@danilotg
What happens if you set the `QT_QPA_PLATFORM` environment variable to "windows"?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30825#issuecomment-2358870082)
@danilotg
What happens if you set the `QT_QPA_PLATFORM` environment variable to "windows"?
⚠️ jarolrod opened an issue: "cmake: adjust devtools scripts to work under cmake build environment"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30923)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.
The following scripts no longer run without changes:
- gen-bitcoin-conf.sh
- gen-manpages.py
### Is your feature related to a problem, if so please describe it.
_No response_
### Describe the solution you'd like
_No response_
### Describe any alternatives you've considered
_No response_
### Please leave any additional context
_No response_
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30923)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.
The following scripts no longer run without changes:
- gen-bitcoin-conf.sh
- gen-manpages.py
### Is your feature related to a problem, if so please describe it.
_No response_
### Describe the solution you'd like
_No response_
### Describe any alternatives you've considered
_No response_
### Please leave any additional context
_No response_
🤔 jonatack reviewed a pull request: "cli: Improve error message on multiwallet cli-side commands"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#pullrequestreview-2313182154)
ACK 54227e681a4efa8961f1ad05d43366d88a9b686a
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#pullrequestreview-2313182154)
ACK 54227e681a4efa8961f1ad05d43366d88a9b686a
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "cli: Improve error message on multiwallet cli-side commands":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1765348063)
nit if you retouch: `s/raise/raises/` and perhaps explain the difference between the failing filename passed and the wallet name
```suggestion
self.log.info('Test -generate -rpcwallet=<filename> ("wallet.dat" instead of "wallet") raises RPC error')
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1765348063)
nit if you retouch: `s/raise/raises/` and perhaps explain the difference between the failing filename passed and the wallet name
```suggestion
self.log.info('Test -generate -rpcwallet=<filename> ("wallet.dat" instead of "wallet") raises RPC error')
```
💬 maflcko commented on issue "Race condition between ZMQ UpdateTip and getblocktemplate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30862#issuecomment-2358889569)
> A better test would be to reproduce this with regtest which I'll create a script to demonstrate soon.
Did you get a chance to write the reproducer?
> But at the same time it seems there should be a mutex around the chain tip. If there isn't this is basically guaranteed to happen. I haven't looked yet.
Yes, the mutex is called `cs_main` or `ChainstateManager::GetMutex()` . The mutex is held while enqueueing the event. And `getblocktemplate` takes the mutex at the start.
So there may
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30862#issuecomment-2358889569)
> A better test would be to reproduce this with regtest which I'll create a script to demonstrate soon.
Did you get a chance to write the reproducer?
> But at the same time it seems there should be a mutex around the chain tip. If there isn't this is basically guaranteed to happen. I haven't looked yet.
Yes, the mutex is called `cs_main` or `ChainstateManager::GetMutex()` . The mutex is held while enqueueing the event. And `getblocktemplate` takes the mutex at the start.
So there may
...
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "cli: Improve error message on multiwallet cli-side commands":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#issuecomment-2358893398)
@pablomartin4btc I think you need to update the PR description as well.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#issuecomment-2358893398)
@pablomartin4btc I think you need to update the PR description as well.
✅ jarolrod closed an issue: "cmake: adjust devtools scripts to work under cmake build environment"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30923)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30923)
💬 jarolrod commented on issue "cmake: adjust devtools scripts to work under cmake build environment":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30923#issuecomment-2358904932)
documentation changes in the readme are sufficient imo, closing as is.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30923#issuecomment-2358904932)
documentation changes in the readme are sufficient imo, closing as is.
💬 mcelrath commented on issue "Race condition between ZMQ UpdateTip and getblocktemplate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30862#issuecomment-2358912616)
Not yet. I've been running my morning script all week and haven't seen it
happen again.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2024, 12:14 PM maflcko ***@***.***> wrote:
> A better test would be to reproduce this with regtest which I'll create a
> script to demonstrate soon.
>
> Did you get a chance to write the reproducer?
>
> But at the same time it seems there should be a mutex around the chain
> tip. If there isn't this is basically guaranteed to happen. I haven't
> looked yet.
>
> Yes, the mutex i
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30862#issuecomment-2358912616)
Not yet. I've been running my morning script all week and haven't seen it
happen again.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2024, 12:14 PM maflcko ***@***.***> wrote:
> A better test would be to reproduce this with regtest which I'll create a
> script to demonstrate soon.
>
> Did you get a chance to write the reproducer?
>
> But at the same time it seems there should be a mutex around the chain
> tip. If there isn't this is basically guaranteed to happen. I haven't
> looked yet.
>
> Yes, the mutex i
...
👍 jarolrod approved a pull request: "doc: fixed inconsistencies in documentation between autotools to cmake change"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30875#pullrequestreview-2313211226)
ACK a9964c04447745435747d9cc557165c43902783b
Tried to find other inconsistencies, but couldn't.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30875#pullrequestreview-2313211226)
ACK a9964c04447745435747d9cc557165c43902783b
Tried to find other inconsistencies, but couldn't.
💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "rpc: add getorphantxs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30793#discussion_r1765381096)
Thanks, yeah it's a bit too implicit so I added `assert_equal(len(node.getorphantxs()), 1)` to make it clearer and more explicit.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30793#discussion_r1765381096)
Thanks, yeah it's a bit too implicit so I added `assert_equal(len(node.getorphantxs()), 1)` to make it clearer and more explicit.
💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "rpc: add getorphantxs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30793#discussion_r1765381138)
Seemed reasonable to add a check `assert not node.tx_in_orphanage(tx_child_2["tx"])` rather than a new method, but happy to be convinced otherwise.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30793#discussion_r1765381138)
Seemed reasonable to add a check `assert not node.tx_in_orphanage(tx_child_2["tx"])` rather than a new method, but happy to be convinced otherwise.
💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "rpc: add getorphantxs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30793#discussion_r1765381201)
Thanks. Increases clarity. Updated.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30793#discussion_r1765381201)
Thanks. Increases clarity. Updated.