💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "descriptors: Add a KEY expression representing a list of individual keys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26626#issuecomment-1645233520)
Maybe mark as draft for as long as CI is red?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "wallet: Implement independent BDB parser":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26606#issuecomment-1645233777)
Maybe mark as draft for as long as CI is red?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "descriptors: do not return top-level only funcs as sub descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28067#issuecomment-1645240967)
Backported 2/3 of the commits here in #https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28067.

💬 darosior commented on pull request "Wallet: estimate the size of signed inputs using descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26567#discussion_r1270423929)
Updated the comment.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: xcb-proto 1.15.2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28097#issuecomment-1645248859)
Backported this to 25.x in #28047, so that we'll avoid build failures with new Python. Already an issue for anyone building the current release branch on rawhide or similar.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: add end-to-end tests for CConnman and PeerManager":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26812#discussion_r1270441940)
> Do you think I should change it?

In any case, there should be a comment to explain why it sets the mock time, no?

💬 darosior commented on pull request "Wallet: estimate the size of signed inputs using descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26567#discussion_r1270444558)
Done.

📝 kristapsk converted_to_draft a pull request: "RPC: Add universal options argument to listtransactions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22807)
Taken from #19443. There two additional arguments `paginatebypointer` and `nextpagepointer` were added and @luke-jr proposed that they could be united with existing `skip` argument into single `options` JSON argument. This is better approach than continue adding more and more different arguments for different output options. #22775 proposes to add sorting order as additional argument, I think it's better to use the same approach there too. Having this as a separate PR will make reviews and testi
...

💬 vasild commented on pull request "test: add end-to-end tests for CConnman and PeerManager":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26812#discussion_r1270498856)
> Not sure about an infinite timeout for `ASSERT_DEBUG_LOG`. For example, this can easily be hit when the log string is modified by a developer, turning a (doc) change in one place into a hard to debug unit test issue.

I agree. I will stick to a meaningful message after a timeout instead of infinite wait (without a message).

> I know that it is possible to hit an infinite runtime in any other place, but that would generally mean a major fault or injected bug elsewhere. For example, if the
...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: add end-to-end tests for CConnman and PeerManager":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26812#discussion_r1270510651)
> better in mind?

Yeah, any reason you can't just call `ProcessMessagesOnce`. Alternatively, except for the ping/verack case you can just do what the python `def sync_with_ping` does?

⚠️ JaviVald10 opened an issue: "Error: This wallet has no available keys (code -4)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28117)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

I am new and I just installed Bitcoin core, so I'm learning. However, I cannot get a new receiving address and I don't know why!!
I also tried to use the command
/getnewaddress but then it pops up an error saying "this wallet has no available keys (code -4)". I also tried the
...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "Fuzz: a more efficient descriptor parsing target":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27888#issuecomment-1645380531)
For testing I've injected a bug in currently uncovered code:


```diff
diff --git a/src/script/descriptor.cpp b/src/script/descriptor.cpp
index 09ded5fc61..b69db182ab 100644
--- a/src/script/descriptor.cpp
+++ b/src/script/descriptor.cpp
@@ -509,7 +509,7 @@ public:
out = "[" + origin_str + "]" + EncodeExtPubKey(xpub) + FormatHDKeypath(end_path);
if (IsRange()) {
out += "/*";
- assert(m_derive == DeriveType::UNHARDENED);
+ assert(m
...

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Error: This wallet has no available keys (code -4)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28117#issuecomment-1645434395)
How did you create the wallet? There is an option to disable private keys. Don't use it!


<img width="426" alt="Screen Shot 2023-07-21 at 7 25 43 AM" src="https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/assets/2084648/4494846d-168e-4cb7-84b3-275aa822b505">

💬 JaviVald10 commented on issue "Error: This wallet has no available keys (code -4)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28117#issuecomment-1645440006)
I do not remember, I'm gonna try to create another one

💬 JaviVald10 commented on issue "Error: This wallet has no available keys (code -4)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28117#issuecomment-1645442739)
OMG NOW I CAN THANK YOU SO MUCH

✅ JaviVald10 closed an issue: "Error: This wallet has no available keys (code -4)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28117)

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Error: This wallet has no available keys (code -4)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28117#issuecomment-1645443624)
🎯

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "util: Replace std::filesystem with util/fs.h":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28076#issuecomment-1645453965)
rebased

💬 vasild commented on pull request "test: add end-to-end tests for CConnman and PeerManager":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26812#discussion_r1270627453)
If `ProcessMessagesOnce()` is called directly, then it will not be an end-to-end test. It will defeat the purpose of this PR.

Sending ping and waiting for pong (`sync_with_ping`) might be an alternative. It is not as flexible and fine-grained though as waiting for a particular log message to be logged and it involves a timeout too (which could expire too soon on slow platforms). What would be the advantage of a `sync_with_ping` approach? I have to think about this.

💬 darosior commented on pull request "Fuzz: a more efficient descriptor parsing target":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27888#issuecomment-1645525854)
Thanks for testing. Fixed the issue. I also introduced the bug you shared and it does make the target crash.