💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Avoid std::string format strings":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31287#discussion_r1843917615)
Maybe a follow-up can fix this, so that this remains a refactor?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Avoid std::string format strings":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31287#discussion_r1843918244)
I'll leave as-is for now. I think both are fine.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "policy: ephemeral dust followups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31279#discussion_r1843921416)
touched up

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "policy: ephemeral dust followups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31279#discussion_r1843921461)
done

🚀 ryanofsky merged a pull request: "refactor: Avoid std::string format strings"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31287)

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "test: autogenerate bash completion":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30860#discussion_r1844079617)
```suggestion
if self.options.completion is None or len(self.options.completion) == 0:
```

📝 hodlinator converted_to_draft a pull request: "util: Improve documentation and negation of args"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31212)
- Document `-color` as only applying to `-getinfo`, to be less confusing for bitcoin-cli users.
- No longer print version information when getting passed `-noversion`.
- Disallow `-nodatadir` as we cannot run without one. It was previously interpreted as a mix of unset and as a relative path of "0".
- Support `-norpccookiefile`
- Support `-nopid`
- Properly support `-noconf` (instead of working by accident). Also detect when directories are specified instead of files.

Prompted by investi
...

🤔 instagibbs reviewed a pull request: "rpc: add getdescriptoractivity"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30708#pullrequestreview-2438909837)
feature seems to make sense, mostly reviewed tests to get myself familiar with the interface

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "rpc: add getdescriptoractivity":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30708#discussion_r1844113097)
note: this is also a key test of multiple blockhashes

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "rpc: add getdescriptoractivity":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30708#discussion_r1844010301)
should also test invalid descriptors

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "rpc: add getdescriptoractivity":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30708#discussion_r1844122547)
would be great if there was a case showing flipping descriptor ordering doesn't change result ordering

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "rpc: add getdescriptoractivity":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30708#discussion_r1844118607)
testing that this is results in the call getting rejected even if it's f.e. the second blockhash in a list is also a good idea

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "rpc: add getdescriptoractivity":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30708#discussion_r1844117146)
should also test that repeated blockhashes is acceptable(AFAICT it just repeats the event)

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "rpc: add getdescriptoractivity":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30708#discussion_r1844115700)
block order matters, run this case twice, once with blocks in reverse history order?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "rpc: add getdescriptoractivity":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30708#discussion_r1844043247)
I think the lift for downstream wallets to encode spk to address is trivial, so I'd rather no expose "send from" type addresses, but I don't feel super strongly about it.

If not, making the address field an optional return as @tdb3 says is my ask. Makes it a little more clear conceptually what's being exposed.

regardless of the result here, there should be test coverage for an output with no address type and the delta from the other test case `test_multiple_addresses` kind of demonstrates
...

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "rpc: add getdescriptoractivity":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30708#discussion_r1844026636)
I think it deserves the coverage

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "rpc: add getdescriptoractivity":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30708#discussion_r1844126187)
another nice case would be demonstrating the order of activity results intra-block (order in block seems to be respected)

can either set fees differentially, or explicitly construct a block via `node.rpc.generateblock` to be quick about it

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Policy: Report reason inputs are non standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29060#issuecomment-2479385402)
> The release note helps a lot. To err on the side of caution, it seems appropriate to include a `-deprecatedrpc=` option, to enable a period of deprecation for users.

I attempted this, but it's a bit non trivial with some if-else branching. I also had to add a new `TransactionError` enum type to handle `sendrawtransaction` case.
<details>
<summary> see **untested** diff </summary>

```diff
diff --git a/src/common/messages.cpp b/src/common/messages.cpp
index 5fe3e9e4d86..3142ca07b4c 10
...

🤔 ismaelsadeeq reviewed a pull request: "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#pullrequestreview-2439119880)
reACK 5736d1ddacc4019101e7a5170dd25efbc63b622a

📝 maflcko opened a pull request: "refactor: Prepare compile-time check of bilingual format strings"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31295)
The changes are required for https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31061, however they also make sense on their own. For example, they are fixing up an `inline namespace`, which lead to compile errors otherwise (can be tested by observing the compile error after reverting the changes to `src/util/strencodings.h`). Also, a unit test comment is fixed.