💬 Eunovo commented on pull request "[EXPERIMENTAL] Schnorr batch verification for blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29491#discussion_r1997499892)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29491/commits/d333d5c6e3c4b454621998772ff74ff6656af691: This is nice! sets us up nicely to later do batch taptweak checking since we can "collect" it too.

🤔 Prabhat1308 reviewed a pull request: "test: Check datadir cleanup after assumeutxo was successful"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32033#pullrequestreview-2688530616)
tACK [`0d10f1a`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32033/commits/0d10f1a66436cd2ddab6b04247bcd6c4747cccc3)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: Use rpc_deprecated only for testing deprecation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31977)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "fuzz: provide more realistic values to the base58(check) decoders"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31917)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: Rename send_message to send_without_ping"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31859)

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "depends: capnp build ignores config_opts"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32068)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "build: use make < 3.82 syntax for define directive"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32070)

💬 polespinasa commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: deprecate settxfee and paytxfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31278#issuecomment-2727317686)
Code rebased to avoid conflicts with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31977

💬 janb84 commented on pull request "test: Update coverage.cpp to drop linux restriction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32059#discussion_r1997560882)
Ah thanks! Have changed the commit message accordingly.

💬 janb84 commented on pull request "test: Update coverage.cpp to drop linux restriction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32059#discussion_r1997563469)
I have made the fallback functions `weak` to make the code more robust, it will build without it but it highly depends on linker implementation differences (E.g. if a linker builder makes different choices it will break). Making the fallback weak is just removing the ambiguity from the equation. Resulting in more robust code.

Removing the `weak` attribute from the declarations will result again being at the mercy of the linker.
Strong declarations expect strong definitions. If profiling is
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: fix intermittent failure in p2p_orphan_handling.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32063#issuecomment-2727341862)
lgtm ACK 02942056fd861581503a8a35a06dcf22d4ba1473

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: deprecate settxfee and paytxfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31278#issuecomment-2727342830)
re-ACK 2f2ab47bf74f4da37aad75a186cb0bb16e8af579

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "test: fix intermittent failure in p2p_orphan_handling.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32063#issuecomment-2727344887)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32063/commits/02942056fd861581503a8a35a06dcf22d4ba1473

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Update coverage.cpp to drop linux restriction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32059#issuecomment-2727364835)
review-only ACK 54e6eacc1fccd602897d9e3025c62f83194ffd5b

💬 Prabhat1308 commented on pull request "doc: Update documentation to include Clang/llvm based coverage report generation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31933#issuecomment-2727372085)
Addressed the comments to fix nits. On the use of `-DEBUG` , I haven't been able to do a comparison from lcov generated reports as I don't have any other system . Since `-02` introduces optimisation , I have chosen to keep the `-DEBUG` flag to use `-00` as mentioned here to keep it close to gcov reports.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/36930207/code-coverage-with-optimization
> it seems if I want to collect coverage information with tools like gcov, any optimization flag must be disabled

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "test: Check datadir cleanup after assumeutxo was successful"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32033#pullrequestreview-2688633947)
Re-ACK 0d10f1a66436cd2ddab6b04247bcd6c4747cccc3

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "test: Check datadir cleanup after assumeutxo was successful":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32033#discussion_r1997579018)
Nit: I think you can just pass in `i==1` here, without the `if` `else` (and similarly below).

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "test: Check datadir cleanup after assumeutxo was successful":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32033#discussion_r1997578384)
Nit: `s/assumutxo/assumeutxo/`.

💬 Chand-ra commented on pull request "test: fix intermittent failure in wallet_reorgsrestore.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32069#issuecomment-2727416972)
tACK [36b0713](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/36b0713edc4655f6e0c291975d6d280fbc89cf2e)

Tested by pulling the PR locally and verifying that the behavior of the changed test (or any other test) doesn't change with the proposed change.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "doc: Update documentation to include Clang/llvm based coverage report generation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31933#issuecomment-2727426434)
> gcov

This pull isn't about gcov from GCC, but about clang/llvm-based coverage reports. It seems odd to apply a pessimising workaround from a different tool without documentation. If there is an issue that requires the workaround, it should be trivial to find exact steps to reproduce, or at least a note in the official docs: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/SourceBasedCodeCoverage.html