💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "BIP-119 (OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY) (no activation)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31989#issuecomment-2734450210)
I suggest a regtest-only deployment is defined so functional testing can be re-instated. Currently there is zero consensus coverage at the functional level from what I can tell: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31989/commits/4c5790105e7fb3a2cd207403af769fbbccd7296d

⚠️ polespinasa opened an issue: "Migrate from BTC/kvB to sat/vB on RPC and startup options"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32093)
Most of the RPC and Startup options use BTC/kvB while the "standardized" units by users and other softwares is sats/vB.
Note that updating to sat/vB can be backward incompatible in some cases.

There are two approaches that can be followed:
- Update all to sat/vB even if that is not backward compatible (all in the same release). This has been done before with `bumpfee` and `psbtbumpfee`, before v0.21 were using BTC/kvB and after moved to sats/vB.
- Add an option to use sats/vB but don't remove B
...

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "Fee Estimation: Ignore all transactions that are CPFP'd":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30079#discussion_r2001882084)
The sentence used to end at `they are selected.` Now it's a very long run on sentence. It would be better to break it into two sentences or shorten it.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: avoid disk space warning for non-regtest":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32057#issuecomment-2734583144)
lgtm ACK 20fe41e9e83d510fd467f5a999d55a614b16ef89

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "doc: Update documentation to include Clang/llvm based coverage report generation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31933#discussion_r2001937113)
> don't mention anything about `-O` flags.

That is because they don't matter, as explained in the first line of the docs and in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31933#discussion_r1993037907.

I also confirmed this locally and couldn't find any "bogus line numbers".

If you find any bugs, it would be good to provide exact steps to reproduce, so that the bug can be reported upstream and fixed.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "contrib: Make deterministic-coverage error messages more readable":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32074#issuecomment-2734675004)
> @hodlinator I'll wait for you to give the ack/review on this, and once you are happy that your feedback is fully addressed, I'll move it out of draft

Can't promise I won't find any more issues, but this turned out surprisingly well IMO. Thanks for taking the time to work on it!

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "contrib: Make deterministic-coverage error messages more readable":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32074#discussion_r1999832708)
nit: Unrelated to this change, but would be nice to avoid "shadowing".
```suggestion
let corpora_dir = Path::new(args.get(2).ok_or(exit_help("Must set fuzz corpora dir"))?);
```

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "contrib: Make deterministic-coverage error messages more readable":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32074#discussion_r2001916136)
Unrelated, but while looking for faults with this PR and trying to trigger errors, I got distracted into making this run in parallel. Earlier version triggered OOM-killer and this one is still in a super-unbaked state. (Output should be buffered and sequenced, parallization logic should be refined, file naming uniqueness-approach is bad, etc).

<details><summary>diff</summary>

```diff
diff --git a/contrib/devtools/deterministic-fuzz-coverage/src/main.rs b/contrib/devtools/deterministic-fuz
...

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "contrib: Make deterministic-coverage error messages more readable":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32074#discussion_r2001921947)
This is slightly boilerplate-y but it's a price I'm willing to pay for the rest of the diff.

Might be less annoying to have at the bottom of the file so it's out of the way?

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "contrib: Make deterministic-coverage error messages more readable":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32074#discussion_r1999707442)
info: Would have expected:
```suggestion
_ => return Err(exit_help(&format!("The tool {} is not installed", tool))),
```
`?` feels like returning is an open question, but after `Err()` it's always true... maybe this is still idiomatic though. `?` in other places implies a *possible* `return`, so probably just takes some getting used to.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "contrib: Make deterministic-coverage error messages more readable":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32074#discussion_r2001944320)
Tempting to suggest
```suggestion
struct AppError(String);
```
But it does add a fair amount of noise where it's instantiated, so I understand we might want to go a bit less type-safe for these tools.

🤔 fjahr reviewed a pull request: "qa: fix an off-by-one in utxo snapshot fuzz target and sanity check its snapshot data"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31910#pullrequestreview-2695499527)
tACK 63b534f97e591d4e107fd5148909852eb2965d27

Reviewed the code and played around with the fuzzer changes a bit.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "qa: fix an off-by-one in utxo snapshot fuzz target and sanity check its snapshot data":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31910#discussion_r2001560332)
Hm, this now has the exact same text here as `MineBlock` above and in general it's doesn't explain what happens internally. I think there should be something here or above that makes clear what the difference is. Maybe add something like "Expects the block submitted to have valid PoW." or so.

🤔 ryanofsky reviewed a pull request: "refactor: Improve assumeutxo state representation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30214#pullrequestreview-2691157663)
Rebased d09b82156ced5d543d08226e8d7b8fda2e0ec532 -> 467528960689c2913c101ef75bc833e8f04bd0f3 ([`pr/cstate.9`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/cstate.9) -> [`pr/cstate.10`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/cstate.10), [compare](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/compare/pr/cstate.9-rebase..pr/cstate.10)) due to conflict 31961 and implementing various suggestions.

re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30214#pullrequestreview-2685423528

Thanks for the re
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "refactor: Improve assumeutxo state representation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30214#discussion_r1999102885)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30214#discussion_r1995511334

> I think this `SnapshotcompletionResult` variant can be removed, no?

Good catch, removed.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "refactor: Improve assumeutxo state representation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30214#discussion_r1999444438)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30214#discussion_r1995921074

> Nit: Are we still doing `-present` now? I thought I saw some discussion about that recently, but can't find it anymore.

The change to "present" never made sense to me because I think the only thing "present" could mean is "when this line was written", not what we might want it to mean like "whenever the code here was last modified" or "whenever the code here was published."

Since "present" just seems like a more
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "refactor: Improve assumeutxo state representation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30214#discussion_r1999397249)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30214#discussion_r1995597388

> In commit [9853c83](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9853c8384e1df9ad14c2801e780cc189ac20c6d0): Is the validity check required? AFAICT the historic chainstate is never invalid.

That's true. This anticipates a later change but there is no reason to add that complexity here. Dropped this condition.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "refactor: Improve assumeutxo state representation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30214#discussion_r1999459380)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30214#discussion_r1995924122

> Nit: `s/if is/if it is/`. I think there are some missing articles around here too.

Thanks, fixed up various comments in this header.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "refactor: Improve assumeutxo state representation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30214#discussion_r1999111743)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30214#discussion_r1995503615

> In commit [22bfd94](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/22bfd948f0d45083748724a304fa2c8482464028): Just a note: The removal of this particular check in this commit seems a bit random with all the following kind of redundant assertions, but the code does get cleaned up in later commits.

We might be noticing different things here so let me know if you have suggestions for improving this, but I don't think this c
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "refactor: Improve assumeutxo state representation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30214#discussion_r2001594456)
In commit "refactor: Add ChainstateManager::ActivateBestChains() method" (58265b955a3d8622f22958943f79409129d58b36)

re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30214#discussion_r1996247059

> Shouldn't this skip over the historical chainstate if `m_target_utxohash` is set?

Yes good catch. Updated this to be equivalent.