💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "mempool: Avoid needless vtx iteration during IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32827#discussion_r2214400965)
Fair enough, It should be removed then because of the reason here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32827#pullrequestreview-3030963395 I've come across multiple places where such comments get stale and not updated.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "mempool: Avoid needless vtx iteration during IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32827#discussion_r2214403826)
This is a valid point, might be better for such removals to be in it's own commit with this explanation as rationale.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "mempool: Avoid needless vtx iteration during IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32827#discussion_r2214435971)
Since the method is about mempool removal, I found it surprising that it is needed for fee estimation - hence the comment

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#issuecomment-3086471740)
re-ACK dbd76e68c3fd86814e96be85a2d23eb542df6e55

Changes from my last ACK cedbc2cd99754c099e92f074e1d5566da265bf26 (git range-diff 7763e86afa...cedbc2cd99 5d17e64a02...dbd76e68c3)

4480ca4a2f - Added a comment
ead32f37c8 - `const uint256&` in some places were changed to `const Txid/Wtxid&` and this caused a conflict
7255b28cbb - fixed issue with passing 0 as second parameter to sendrawtransaction
9ec10ceb59 - split up combined `if` statement into two separate statements. Expanded on a com
...

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r2214749431)
You did not change it :(. It is commented out so it's not a deal breaker here.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "init: [gui] Avoid UB/crash in InitAndLoadChainstate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32987#issuecomment-3086779852)
> seems like it got broken multiple times in the past without users really noticing / complaining?

They'd still see the error message about the `-reindex`, before the crash. It seems easy to dismiss a crash as hardware fault and not software fault after you've seen a corruption warning.



> Is there any way to write an actual GUI test for this? Having to add an obscure, single-use option to bitcoind, to simulate crashing behaviour in the GUI, seems like a last resort?

Switched to the
...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "ARM Windows build and release":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31388#issuecomment-3086818557)
See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/master/contrib/guix#bootstrappable-bitcoin-core-builds

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Do not pass tests on unhandled exceptions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33001#discussion_r2214958175)
> I kinda like seeing where it got interrupted

Yeah, I realize it is useful to debug timeouts. Pushed a fresh commit for `KeyboardInterrupt`.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "ipc: add bitcoin-mine test program":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30437#issuecomment-3087403014)
> This increases the scope quite a bit, and if we're going to demonstrate mining, I think it should be done accurately.

I don't think the goal is to _demonstrate_ mining, it's to increase (functional) test coverage.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "ipc: add bitcoin-mine test program":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30437#discussion_r2215166231)
It seems fine to mine on mainnet for a fraction of a second.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "ipc: add bitcoin-mine test program":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30437#discussion_r2215171067)
For the purpose of test coverage, it's good to call it this with an invalid solution.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "ipc: add bitcoin-mine test program":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30437#discussion_r2215175895)
Regtest has an extremely low difficulty, so it's (almost?) impossible to not find a solution. However it does seem more correct to handle the failure case.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Cluster linearization: separate tests from tests-of-tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30605#discussion_r2215338569)
This doesn't mean mask is non-zero if non-empty, if that is the goal. Also, if it isn't, IntSan will notify about it:

```
echo 'AQAAAID+/v7+/v7+/n8=' | base64 --decode > /tmp/f.crash

UBSAN_OPTIONS="suppressions=$(pwd)/test/sanitizer_suppressions/ubsan:print_stacktrace=1:halt_on_error=1:report_error_type=1" FUZZ=clusterlin_ancestor_finder ./bld/bin/fuzz -runs=1 /tmp/f.crash
```

```
INFO: Running with entropic power schedule (0xFF, 100).
INFO: Seed: 1905069321
INFO: Loaded 1 modules (588821
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: add option to skip large re-org test in feature_block":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33003#issuecomment-3088548960)
review ACK 8810642b571e1d8482375e962a1129b691d5d226 🥁

<details><summary>Show signature</summary>

Signature:

```
untrusted comment: signature from minisign secret key on empty file; verify via: minisign -Vm "${path_to_any_empty_file}" -P RWTRmVTMeKV5noAMqVlsMugDDCyyTSbA3Re5AkUrhvLVln0tSaFWglOw -x "${path_to_this_whole_four_line_signature_blob}"
RUTRmVTMeKV5npGrKx1nqXCw5zeVHdtdYURB/KlyA/LMFgpNCs+SkW9a8N95d+U4AP1RJMi+krxU1A3Yux4bpwZNLvVBKy0wLgM=
trusted comment: review ACK 8810642b571e
...

🤔 janb84 reviewed a pull request: "cmake: Create subdirectories in build tree in advance"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32773#pullrequestreview-3032634011)
re ACK fa3beb6316d426b7e388d71fa2f09aed4d2da3d2

Changes sinds last ACK:
- Solved Merge conflict.

Retested, still worked as described. ✅
Code review ✅

💬 mprenditore commented on pull request "Added rescan option for import descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31668#issuecomment-3088660266)
Hello, is possible to review it again? It should be all good now.
Thanks a lot for the support :)

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "Have createwalletdescriptor auto-detect an unused(KEY)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32861#issuecomment-3088814090)
> This PR makes createwalletdescriptor a bit smarter so it just finds the unused(KEY) generated by hdkey and uses that.

Once the unused(KEY) descriptor is used, doesn't it become used? Keeping it as an unused descriptor later might come across as confusing.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Cluster linearization: separate tests from tests-of-tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30605#discussion_r2215602479)
Nice this can be prevented by only incrementing by one when the mask is empty
```diff
diff --git a/src/test/fuzz/cluster_linearize.cpp b/src/test/fuzz/cluster_linearize.cpp
index ef20eeaea0d..9c5db4f1495 100644
--- a/src/test/fuzz/cluster_linearize.cpp
+++ b/src/test/fuzz/cluster_linearize.cpp
@@ -304,7 +304,7 @@ SetType ReadTopologicalSet(const DepGraph<SetType>& depgraph, const SetType& tod
try {
reader >> VARINT(mask);
} catch(const std::ios_base::failure&) {}
-
...

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "Have createwalletdescriptor auto-detect an unused(KEY)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32861#discussion_r2215603326)
In e8b1440aa3ed7efe3a9c2d10afb05e7247fff1f6 "rpc: make createwalletdescriptor smarter"

Though this check here seems more thorough, but the presence of more than one `spkm` also seems sufficient to throw this error?

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Have createwalletdescriptor auto-detect an unused(KEY)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32861#issuecomment-3088848116)
> Keeping it as an unused descriptor later might come across as confusing.

I agree, and it was also brought up here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29136#issuecomment-1868202696 It's orthogonal to this PR.