💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: prohibit direct flags access in CCoinsCacheEntry and remove invalid tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30906#discussion_r1865921841)
Done
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30906#discussion_r1865921841)
Done
💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: prohibit direct flags access in CCoinsCacheEntry and remove invalid tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30906#discussion_r1865922183)
Done
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30906#discussion_r1865922183)
Done
💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: prohibit direct flags access in CCoinsCacheEntry and remove invalid tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30906#discussion_r1865922298)
Done
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30906#discussion_r1865922298)
Done
💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: prohibit direct flags access in CCoinsCacheEntry and remove invalid tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30906#discussion_r1865922400)
Done, thanks
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30906#discussion_r1865922400)
Done, thanks
💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: prohibit direct flags access in CCoinsCacheEntry and remove invalid tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30906#discussion_r1865922643)
enum class is safer than enum https://agrawalsuneet.github.io/blogs/enum-vs-enum-class-in-c++ and I didn't like the result of `using enum State`
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30906#discussion_r1865922643)
enum class is safer than enum https://agrawalsuneet.github.io/blogs/enum-vs-enum-class-in-c++ and I didn't like the result of `using enum State`
💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: prohibit direct flags access in CCoinsCacheEntry and remove invalid tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30906#issuecomment-2511657756)
Thanks @hodlinator, updated the PR:
* Removed redundant `inlines` from `struct CCoinsCacheEntry`
* Moved constants above `CoinEntry`and used const and brace init in more places in `coins_tests.cpp`
* Migrated changes inside the commits as soon as possible to minimize churn
* Added `AccessCoin` return value check in `CheckAccessCoin`
* Change `CheckAddCoin` param order to have cache values before the modified values in the row
* Fixed remaining `SetDirty`/`SetFresh` static reference in Fuzz
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30906#issuecomment-2511657756)
Thanks @hodlinator, updated the PR:
* Removed redundant `inlines` from `struct CCoinsCacheEntry`
* Moved constants above `CoinEntry`and used const and brace init in more places in `coins_tests.cpp`
* Migrated changes inside the commits as soon as possible to minimize churn
* Added `AccessCoin` return value check in `CheckAccessCoin`
* Change `CheckAddCoin` param order to have cache values before the modified values in the row
* Fixed remaining `SetDirty`/`SetFresh` static reference in Fuzz
...
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Skip broken Wine64 tests by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31284#issuecomment-2511693820)
... https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4678171796176896?logs=ci#L2624
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31284#issuecomment-2511693820)
... https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4678171796176896?logs=ci#L2624
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Skip broken Wine64 tests by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31284#issuecomment-2511696412)
Is this test-only change with two reviews rfm?
This is the most common false positive right now.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31284#issuecomment-2511696412)
Is this test-only change with two reviews rfm?
This is the most common false positive right now.
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "[28.x] Backports & 28.1rc1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31104#issuecomment-2511697266)
Thanks, fixed up the message.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31104#issuecomment-2511697266)
Thanks, fixed up the message.
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: Temporarily disable compiling `fuzz/utxo_snapshot.cpp` with MSVC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31307#issuecomment-2511697621)
Added a commit for 28.x to #31104 to work around the same MSVC failure.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31307#issuecomment-2511697621)
Added a commit for 28.x to #31104 to work around the same MSVC failure.
💬 sipa commented on pull request "Embed default ASMap as binary dump header file":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28792#issuecomment-2511719781)
Concept ACK.
It would be nice if the asmap data blob didn't need to be converted to `std::vector<bool>` at runtime anymore, because that implies using memory twice (the blob itself, plus the decoded vector, despite containing effectively the same data). To improve upon that, I don't think it's hard to make the asmap interpreter code operate on a `std::span<const std::byte>` instead of a `std::vector<bool>`. Do you feel like looking into that, or do you want me to do so as a follow-up?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28792#issuecomment-2511719781)
Concept ACK.
It would be nice if the asmap data blob didn't need to be converted to `std::vector<bool>` at runtime anymore, because that implies using memory twice (the blob itself, plus the decoded vector, despite containing effectively the same data). To improve upon that, I don't think it's hard to make the asmap interpreter code operate on a `std::span<const std::byte>` instead of a `std::vector<bool>`. Do you feel like looking into that, or do you want me to do so as a follow-up?
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "test: Call generate RPCs through test framework only":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31403#issuecomment-2511736165)
any way you can see to prevent "regressions"?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31403#issuecomment-2511736165)
any way you can see to prevent "regressions"?
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Skip broken Wine64 tests by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31284#issuecomment-2511739493)
... https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6390830670282752?logs=ci#L4462
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31284#issuecomment-2511739493)
... https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6390830670282752?logs=ci#L4462
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Call generate RPCs through test framework only":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31403#issuecomment-2511751001)
I don't see a trivial way to enforce this (even more) in Python, but given that there are only 9 lines that needed to be touched, it seems that the majority of code is fine, which is nice.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31403#issuecomment-2511751001)
I don't see a trivial way to enforce this (even more) in Python, but given that there are only 9 lines that needed to be touched, it seems that the majority of code is fine, which is nice.
💬 darosior commented on pull request "Miner: never create a template which exploits the timewarp bug":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31376#issuecomment-2511789684)
> By normal circumstance you mean when nobody else on the network is attempting a timewarp attack? But what if there is one?
Sure, a timewarp attack is not normal circumstances. But even then this change would not be harmful. It would merely not be supporting attackers. Which as i argued in OP i see as a benefit.
> Let's say the soft fork is deployed in the future with MAX_TIMEWARP set to 300. But honest miner Alice is still running the v29 release with this PR it, using 600. Mean miner Bo
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31376#issuecomment-2511789684)
> By normal circumstance you mean when nobody else on the network is attempting a timewarp attack? But what if there is one?
Sure, a timewarp attack is not normal circumstances. But even then this change would not be harmful. It would merely not be supporting attackers. Which as i argued in OP i see as a benefit.
> Let's say the soft fork is deployed in the future with MAX_TIMEWARP set to 300. But honest miner Alice is still running the v29 release with this PR it, using 600. Mean miner Bo
...
💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "test: enable running independent functional test sub-tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30991#discussion_r1866053557)
Happy to update when retouching.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30991#discussion_r1866053557)
Happy to update when retouching.
💬 danielabrozzoni commented on issue "Unable to compile for test coverage on Nixos 24.05":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31087#issuecomment-2511853906)
Awesome, now it works! Thank you :)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31087#issuecomment-2511853906)
Awesome, now it works! Thank you :)
💬 darosior commented on pull request "PoC: fuzz chainstate and block managers":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29158#issuecomment-2511864012)
This has unfortunately gotten lower in my list of priorities. I'll close this PR for now to clarify its status. I hope to get back to this at some point. Anyone willing to work on this, or parts of this feel free to grab or/and reach out.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29158#issuecomment-2511864012)
This has unfortunately gotten lower in my list of priorities. I'll close this PR for now to clarify its status. I hope to get back to this at some point. Anyone willing to work on this, or parts of this feel free to grab or/and reach out.
✅ darosior closed a pull request: "PoC: fuzz chainstate and block managers"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29158)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29158)
👍 willcl-ark approved a pull request: "[28.x] Backports & 28.1rc1"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31104#pullrequestreview-2473058165)
ACK 8fef83a0a03f884e0c5399b318eb55064b84b718
Agree that it's reasonable to apply the MSVC exclusion to all MSVC versions in this fixup.
<details>
<summary>system info</summary>
| k | v |
|-------------|-------|
| OS | Ubuntu 23.10 (mantic) |
| Arch | x86_64 |
| Kernel | 6.5.0-44-generic |
| System | Linux |
| CPU Model | 11th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-11700K @ 3.60GHz |
| CPU Cores | 16 |
| Memory | 62Gi |
| CC | Homebre
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31104#pullrequestreview-2473058165)
ACK 8fef83a0a03f884e0c5399b318eb55064b84b718
Agree that it's reasonable to apply the MSVC exclusion to all MSVC versions in this fixup.
<details>
<summary>system info</summary>
| k | v |
|-------------|-------|
| OS | Ubuntu 23.10 (mantic) |
| Arch | x86_64 |
| Kernel | 6.5.0-44-generic |
| System | Linux |
| CPU Model | 11th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-11700K @ 3.60GHz |
| CPU Cores | 16 |
| Memory | 62Gi |
| CC | Homebre
...