💬 beage666 commented on pull request "test: Remove dead code from interface_zmq test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30942#issuecomment-2366846364)
Ok

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "refactor: prohibit direct flags access in CCoinsCacheEntry and remove invalid tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30906#discussion_r1770588271)
Ah yes I see it was moved up with `AddFlags` to private. Maybe better to keep it on `SetDirty`.

> Adding a flag also requires a self reference to the pair that contains this entry in the CCoinsCache map

There's no context in the method signature that it is an entry in the `CCoinsCache` map.

> and a reference to the sentinel of the flagged pair linked list

There's no context in the method signature about a flagged linked list.

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "refactor: prohibit direct flags access in CCoinsCacheEntry and remove invalid tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30906#discussion_r1770589885)
```suggestion
constexpr CoinEntry(CAmount v, State s) : value(v), state(s) {}
```
then all `const static MaybeCoin` declarations below can be made `constexpr`.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: prohibit direct flags access in CCoinsCacheEntry and remove invalid tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30906#discussion_r1770592376)
> There's no context in the method signature that it is an entry in the CCoinsCache map

isn't that what `CoinsCachePair` means?

> method signature about a flagged linked list

The sentinel hints at it.

But, again, I kept the methods for AddFlags - and don't want to duplicate it for SetFresh and SetDirty.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "test: Introduce ensure helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30893#discussion_r1770595924)
Hm, just doing that would have an unexpected effect, I think. With the code unchanged if the user would today pass the parameters with delay=duration, then I think the predicate would only be checked once in the beginning and not at the end because at the second conditional check the time passed should be the runtime of predicate + the sleep of duration, so the loop wouldn't run a second time. That's not what a user expects when they pass a high delay probably. So I have done the following: If d
...

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "test: Introduce ensure helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30893#discussion_r1770595947)
renamed to `check_interval`

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "test: Introduce ensure helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30893#issuecomment-2366877891)
Addressed feedback from @furszy and added some better documentation.

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "refactor: prohibit direct flags access in CCoinsCacheEntry and remove invalid tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30906#discussion_r1770595622)
Can we just hardcode value3 for write? It's the same for every case here.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: prohibit direct flags access in CCoinsCacheEntry and remove invalid tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30906#discussion_r1770597044)
Wouldn't that be inconsistent?
In every other case, the constant contained both values.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "wallet: Write best block to disk before backup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30678#discussion_r1770597724)
done

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "wallet: Write best block to disk before backup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30678#discussion_r1770597731)
done

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "wallet: Write best block to disk before backup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30678#issuecomment-2366881046)
Added improvements suggested by @furszy , thanks!

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "refactor: prohibit direct flags access in CCoinsCacheEntry and remove invalid tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30906#discussion_r1770598205)
I mean, if you look at the `Write` column, each value is `VALUE3`.

💬 kegdeg commented on issue "rpc auth fails 'Error parsing command line arguments: Invalid parameter -rpcpasssword=password":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30939#issuecomment-2366896618)
steps to reproduce

start bitcoind:
bitcoind -datadir='/path/to/node'

the bitcoin.conf file is located in ~/.bitcoin/bitcoin.conf

server=1
rpcuser=user
rpcpassword=password
rpcport=8332

I try checking rpc connectivity with

'curl --user 'user' --data-binary '{"jsonrpc":"1.0","id":"curltext","method":"getinfo","params":[]}' -H 'content-type:text/plain;' http://127.0.0.1:8332'

there is no response and the node returns:
'2024-09-22T18:01:11Z ThreadRPCServer incorrect password
...

💬 sipa commented on issue "rpc auth fails 'Error parsing command line arguments: Invalid parameter -rpcpasssword=password":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30939#issuecomment-2366897566)
If you specify `-datadir`, Bitcoin Core will use the bitcoin.conf file located there, not the default location one's in ~/.bitcoin.

💬 garlonicon commented on pull request "Testnet4 including PoW difficulty adjustment fix":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775#issuecomment-2366902493)
> difficulty appears to be rising exponentially

Not necessarily. There are many CPU-mined blocks, but the chainwork is not rising by that much. And CPU miners are not only producing more blocks than needed: they are also pushing timestamps forward. Which means, that if it will be too hard to mine, then:

1. More people will be mining with CPU difficulty (which is good, because then, everything is left to lottery-based network propagation).
2. The difficulty will stop rising, because if you
...

📝 tdb3 opened a pull request: "doc: correct the zmq automatic build info"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30946)
The current documentation states that ZMQ feature is automatically included when building.
Noticed this was not the case when building to review PR #30942.

👍 tdb3 approved a pull request: "test: Remove dead code from interface_zmq test"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30942#pullrequestreview-2320908742)
CR and light test ACK ed1af8386b34eafed7a2d634ab96d23d6732e5bf

Thanks for simplifying the test.

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "test: Remove dead code from interface_zmq test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30942#discussion_r1770618663)
Thought about this assert being turned into a loop (retrying until `get_raw_seq` is 6), but it doesn't seem to fail currently, and the `sync_all()` call above might be helping to ensure this.

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "doc: correct the zmq automatic build info":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30946#issuecomment-2366936335)
CI failure seems to be another instance of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30922

```
test 2024-09-22T19:16:03.915000Z TestFramework (ERROR): Assertion failed
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/Users/runner/work/bitcoin/bitcoin/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 132, in main
self.run_test()
File "/Users/
...