🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: fix intermittent failure in p2p_orphan_handling.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32063)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: fix intermittent failure in wallet_reorgsrestore.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32069)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Remove redundant and confusing calls to IsArgSet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31896#discussion_r1997633914)
removed it here. Should be trivial to re-review

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: replace hardcoded fee with node relay fee based calculation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32058#discussion_r1997654688)
not sure about using float and then int again. Why is this needed?

Also, changing `FEE` may change the test logic, so it seems better to adjust manually

It would be best to just add an `assert_equal(FEE, minrelaytxfee)`

📝 theStack opened a pull request: "qt: doc: adapt outdated binary paths to CMake changes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/858)
Adapt the qt-related instances of outdated binary paths to `./build/bin/...` (see [#30454](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454) and the more recently merged [#31161](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31161)). According to `$ git grep src/qt.*bitcoin` there should be no more left to address.

✅ maflcko closed an issue: "intermittent issue in wallet_reorgsrestore.py in test_reorg_handling_during_unclean_shutdown: FailedToStartError: [node 0] bitcoind exited with status 1 during initialization. Error: Cannot obtain a lock on directory"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32066)

💬 Chand-ra commented on pull request "test: replace hardcoded fee with node relay fee based calculation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32058#discussion_r1997662972)
> not sure about using float and then int again. Why is this needed?

The fee in satoshis must be integer, so I added those as a precautionary measure. Looking back at it, they do seem redundant.

> Also, changing FEE may change the test logic, so it seems better to adjust manually

Isn't that the point of the change suggested by the `TODO` tag though? To make `FEE` adapt dynamically to a change in `minRelayTxFee`?

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "test: Check datadir cleanup after assumeutxo was successful":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32033#discussion_r1997671044)
fixed

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "test: Check datadir cleanup after assumeutxo was successful":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32033#discussion_r1997671110)
Indeed, nice.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "test: Check datadir cleanup after assumeutxo was successful":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32033#issuecomment-2727563285)
Addressed @TheCharlatan 's comments, sorry for invalidating the ACKs again but diff should be easy to review: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0d10f1a66436cd2ddab6b04247bcd6c4747cccc3..52482cb24400f8c44ba9628aaaecb7c04b11beb2

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "test: Check datadir cleanup after assumeutxo was successful"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32033#pullrequestreview-2688762231)
Re-ACK 52482cb24400f8c44ba9628aaaecb7c04b11beb2

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r1997696790)
I tried again with `-debug=privatebroadcast`. It does indeed just wait at 0 connections. The only relevant logs are
```
[privatebroadcast] Requesting 5 new connections due to txid=<redacted>, wtxid=<redacted>
[privatebroadcast] Request to increment the needed new connections by 5, changed from 0 to 5
```

Also had `-debug=net -debug=tor`, and no new connections were attempted.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "test: Check datadir cleanup after assumeutxo was successful":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32033#issuecomment-2727626203)
utACK 52482cb24400f8c44ba9628aaaecb7c04b11beb2

The build failure seems unrelated

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "test: Check datadir cleanup after assumeutxo was successful":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32033#discussion_r1997696997)
nit: `node.datadir_path / node.chain / "chainstate_snapshot"` could be extracted to obviate that it's checked multiple times

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r1997703505)
What did work was setting `-maxconnections=1` and then `-addnode=<local node>`. This did create a single blocks only peer along with the addnode peer, but it was able to use private broadcast. So, seems like there is a switch somewhere that disables this if `-maxconnections=0` exactly?

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "test: Check datadir cleanup after assumeutxo was successful":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32033#discussion_r1997707260)
Will do if I have to retouch

💬 mabu44 commented on pull request "test: Check datadir cleanup after assumeutxo was successful":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32033#issuecomment-2727714824)
Re-ACK 52482cb24400f8c44ba9628aaaecb7c04b11beb2

💬 fanquake commented on issue "doc: Mempool Policy documentation Outdated since TRUC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32067#issuecomment-2727829866)
cc @glozow

⚠️ fanquake pinned an issue: "29.0 RC Testing Guide Feedback"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32026)
This issue is to discuss the [29.0 Release Candidate Testing Guide](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/29.0-Release-Candidate-Testing-Guide). If you have any feedback on the document, please leave a comment here.

Note: This is for feedback on the document, not on Bitcoin Core or on the 29.0 changes.

Thank you for taking a look at the guide and leaving your feedback.

ps. The initial page was co-authored-by:
@arejula27
@musaHaruna
@Prabhat1308
As part of the 2025 [Chaincode l
...

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: fix intermittent failure in p2p_orphan_handling.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32063#issuecomment-2727852730)
Rebased in #32062