💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "bench: close wallets after migration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32309#discussion_r2053864587)
This wasn't needed in the end, removed in latest push

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "bench: close wallets after migration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32309#issuecomment-2820945963)
Thanks for the suggestions @furszy, @achow101 and @maflcko.
Updated the commits to use `MakeWalletLoader` instead of manually closing, and moved the `epochIterations(1)` after the CI change to obviate that the CI already does that.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "bench: close wallets after migration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32309#issuecomment-2820962881)
> I believe we've kept it merely as a sanity check because it's the only test that will survive the annihilation of the legacy wallet code.

Sounds like this should be an actual test then instead of a benchmark, no?

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] prevector: store `P2WSH`/`P2TR`/`P2PK` scripts inline":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32279#discussion_r2053895857)
Thanks, extracted to a separate commit - as suggested by @luke-jr as well - added you both as co-authors.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] prevector: store `P2WSH`/`P2TR`/`P2PK` scripts inline":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32279#discussion_r2053896250)
Done, thanks

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "bench: close wallets after migration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32309#issuecomment-2820998715)
> Sounds like this should be an actual test then instead of a benchmark, no?

I also asked the same.
I suggest we fix and reenable full CI-validation first, and we can create a detailed test with proper asserts separately - since I'm not a wallet expert (yet?)

👍 laanwj approved a pull request: "wallet: Disable creating and loading legacy wallets"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31250#pullrequestreview-2783785728)
Re-ACK e39118ab0bf08fdaf68b16c86ad304b9133b43c7
git range-diff b8cefeb221490868d62b7a0695f8b5ea392d3654..545a36ae0aa5687366fc4fdd54058072f333e73f b2bb27f40c7ab7b51720e41d136dcc9077a525b3..e39118ab0bf08fdaf68b16c86ad304b9133b43c7 commit
- `test: rpcs disabled for descriptor wallets were removed` was dropped and moved to another PR
- `tests, gui: Use descriptors watchonly wallet for watchonly test` was added
- `test: Remove legacy wallet unit tests`: qt related changes were removed, replaced b
...

👍 l0rinc approved a pull request: "qa: Verify clean shutdown on startup failure"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30660#pullrequestreview-2783771949)
ACK ea3cc8388b4aefcaee61f75e8bf1bc03281a0c91

LGTM, left a few nits, but none are blockers.
Before merging someone with more experience should also review to be sure.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "qa: Verify clean shutdown on startup failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30660#discussion_r2053942125)
I'm fine with this as well, but to avoid complexity on declaration site and usage site (and to skip the "weak" part which seems out-of-place), we could try:
```suggestion
hash_id = int(sha256(expected_exception.encode("utf-8")).hexdigest()[:8], 16)
if self.options.tmpdir:
args.append(f"--tmpdir={self.options.tmpdir}/{hash_id}")
if self.options.randomseed is not None:
args.append(f"--randomseed={self.options.randomseed ^ hash_id}")
```

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "qa: Verify clean shutdown on startup failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30660#discussion_r2053935108)
Maybe we could make the tenses more uniform here:
```suggestion
# Launches a child test process that runs this same file, instantiates
# a child test, and verifies that it raises only the expected exception.
```

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "qa: Verify clean shutdown on startup failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30660#discussion_r2053946928)
nit:
I know I wrote `.*` but we might want `.+` instead, since we likely don't support empty ones

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "qa: Verify clean shutdown on startup failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30660#discussion_r2053917393)
yes, I meant either print + raise or just `raise Exception("Should have failed earlier during startup")`, as you've mentioned.
`assert False` feels like a hack...

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "qa: Verify clean shutdown on startup failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30660#discussion_r2053944080)
nit: '\n' seems less cryptic:
```suggestion
assert not errors, f"Child test didn't contain (only) expected errors:\n{'\n'.join(errors)}\n<CHILD OUTPUT BEGIN>\n{output}\n<CHILD OUTPUT END>\n"
```

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "qa: Verify clean shutdown on startup failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30660#discussion_r2053912193)
Indeed, thanks

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "qa: Verify clean shutdown on startup failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30660#discussion_r2053925442)
I think it applies to the other `findall` instances after this

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "ci: Drop no longer necessary `-Wno-error=array-bounds`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32308)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "doc: Add deps install notes for multiprocess"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32293)

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2053495512)
Unused?

🤔 hodlinator reviewed a pull request: "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#pullrequestreview-2783071854)
Code Review 46854038e7984b599d25640de26d4680e62caba7

Didn't get much deeper than surface level yet, but sharing what I found so far.

My primary suggestion is to change the `Obfuscation`-ctors to take static-extent `span`s to prevent accidental out-of-bounds access and also to clarify that we don't consume bigger `vector`s (see inline comment). `std::array` of matching size maps well to such `span`s.

#### Branch with suggestions

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...hodl
...

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2053502958)
nit: Could declare default initialization value for `m_obfuscation` in header to avoid touching these lines.