💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "refactor / kernel: Move non-gArgs chainparams functionality to kernel":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26177#discussion_r1136990916)
nit in 1157bcde4b2f05521a0c0d58eb790d4c62572ea7: I think the comment here can be removed? We have iwyu to produce these if anyone wants them, and all other includes in this file don't have them either.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26177#discussion_r1136990916)
nit in 1157bcde4b2f05521a0c0d58eb790d4c62572ea7: I think the comment here can be removed? We have iwyu to produce these if anyone wants them, and all other includes in this file don't have them either.
💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "refactor / kernel: Move non-gArgs chainparams functionality to kernel":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26177#discussion_r1136977126)
nit in 6e5221c49ef0e259a3109b51cbc68474f587be58: Might as well make this `make_unique` as well? ( I guess you wanted to keep this move-only, but the other `make_unique` are no longer move-only anyway, as you removed the `const`.)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26177#discussion_r1136977126)
nit in 6e5221c49ef0e259a3109b51cbc68474f587be58: Might as well make this `make_unique` as well? ( I guess you wanted to keep this move-only, but the other `make_unique` are no longer move-only anyway, as you removed the `const`.)
💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "refactor / kernel: Move non-gArgs chainparams functionality to kernel":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26177#discussion_r1136991527)
nit in 1157bcde4b2f05521a0c0d58eb790d4c62572ea7: cassert
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26177#discussion_r1136991527)
nit in 1157bcde4b2f05521a0c0d58eb790d4c62572ea7: cassert
💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "refactor: Extract util/fs from util/system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27254#issuecomment-1469950032)
I guess it can be added back? No strong opinion. Though, we might want to look into docker image caching to avoid the `apt` overhead.
> `sed -i '11 i #include <cstddef>' src/compat/assumptions.h`
Not sure if this should be hidden like this. A separate commit or pull request seems better for this bugfix. Also, could add it to ci iwyu for reviewers to check for other missing includes?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27254#issuecomment-1469950032)
I guess it can be added back? No strong opinion. Though, we might want to look into docker image caching to avoid the `apt` overhead.
> `sed -i '11 i #include <cstddef>' src/compat/assumptions.h`
Not sure if this should be hidden like this. A separate commit or pull request seems better for this bugfix. Also, could add it to ci iwyu for reviewers to check for other missing includes?
💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: fix race condition in encrypted wallet rescan tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27199#issuecomment-1469955838)
Didn't re-test. Please advise maintainers if you want this merged or work on coverage for `walletpassphrase` a bit more (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27199#discussion_r1136502150)
review ACK 78cd77e17719d56366c483d5508cad7b0c5f1b5c 🏟
<details><summary>Show signature</summary>
Signature:
```
untrusted comment: signature from minisign secret key on empty file; verify via: minisign -Vm "${path_to_any_empty_file}" -P RWTRmVTMeKV5noAMqVlsMugDDCyyTSbA3Re5AkUrhvLVln0tSaFWglOw -
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27199#issuecomment-1469955838)
Didn't re-test. Please advise maintainers if you want this merged or work on coverage for `walletpassphrase` a bit more (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27199#discussion_r1136502150)
review ACK 78cd77e17719d56366c483d5508cad7b0c5f1b5c 🏟
<details><summary>Show signature</summary>
Signature:
```
untrusted comment: signature from minisign secret key on empty file; verify via: minisign -Vm "${path_to_any_empty_file}" -P RWTRmVTMeKV5noAMqVlsMugDDCyyTSbA3Re5AkUrhvLVln0tSaFWglOw -
...
💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "feature_config_args.py failure under `--valgrind`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27259#issuecomment-1469960716)
> (non-timeout) fashion
Why? What happens if you increase the timeout factor?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27259#issuecomment-1469960716)
> (non-timeout) fashion
Why? What happens if you increase the timeout factor?
💬 theStack commented on issue "RFC: Replacing Boost Process":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24907#issuecomment-1469975716)
> > FWIW, I started working on replacing boost::process with cpp-subprocess on the following branch:
>
> Does cpp-subprocess ok work on OpenBSD?
Yes, at least the corresponding unit tests and functional tests pass both on Linux (Ubuntu 22.04.1 LTS, Kernel 5.15.0) and OpenBSD (7.2). Would be nice if someone could test the branch (https://github.com/theStack/bitcoin/tree/nuke_boost_process) on MacOS.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24907#issuecomment-1469975716)
> > FWIW, I started working on replacing boost::process with cpp-subprocess on the following branch:
>
> Does cpp-subprocess ok work on OpenBSD?
Yes, at least the corresponding unit tests and functional tests pass both on Linux (Ubuntu 22.04.1 LTS, Kernel 5.15.0) and OpenBSD (7.2). Would be nice if someone could test the branch (https://github.com/theStack/bitcoin/tree/nuke_boost_process) on MacOS.
💬 desirepl commented on issue "Bitcoin ignores datadir and blocksdir parameter in .conf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27246#issuecomment-1470006043)
It's not the only GUI bug.
1. Start bitcoind -debuglogfile
2. It says it's default datadir is in %AppData%\Bitcoin and "using this data directory if no bitcoin.conf there (-qt.exe readr Registry value for default datadir in that case)
3. Place bitcoin.conf there and add two lines: datadir and blocksdir (out of sections, in global scope)
4. Start bitcoind -debuglogfile again
5. It says it's default datadir and using it the same as in 2; blocksdir is used as in .conf. Now it is ignoring datad
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27246#issuecomment-1470006043)
It's not the only GUI bug.
1. Start bitcoind -debuglogfile
2. It says it's default datadir is in %AppData%\Bitcoin and "using this data directory if no bitcoin.conf there (-qt.exe readr Registry value for default datadir in that case)
3. Place bitcoin.conf there and add two lines: datadir and blocksdir (out of sections, in global scope)
4. Start bitcoind -debuglogfile again
5. It says it's default datadir and using it the same as in 2; blocksdir is used as in .conf. Now it is ignoring datad
...
💬 stickies-v commented on issue "Feature request: alert PR author in case of CI failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27178#issuecomment-1470021680)
> Because notifying the author in case of a intermittent CI network error is entirely pointless if they can't re-run the task anyway.
I think having a "CI failed" label is not a bad idea, but I don't agree that notifying everyone is desirable. Afaik everyone can re-run the CI on _their own_ PRs, if they connect their github account to cirrus? At least I'm able to, and I don't think I have any special privileges. For example, on https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5819454748098560 I have this option:
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27178#issuecomment-1470021680)
> Because notifying the author in case of a intermittent CI network error is entirely pointless if they can't re-run the task anyway.
I think having a "CI failed" label is not a bad idea, but I don't agree that notifying everyone is desirable. Afaik everyone can re-run the CI on _their own_ PRs, if they connect their github account to cirrus? At least I'm able to, and I don't think I have any special privileges. For example, on https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5819454748098560 I have this option:
...
💬 vasild commented on pull request "addrman: Enable selecting addresses by network":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27214#discussion_r1137099484)
Where?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27214#discussion_r1137099484)
Where?
📝 petertodd opened a pull request: "Ignore datacarrier limits for dataless OP_RETURN outputs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27261)
They don't carry any data, so the -datacarrier/-datacarriersize options should not apply to them. Previously a transaction containing an OP_RETURN without data would be rejected if datacarrier was set to false, or the datacarriersize was set to zero.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27261)
They don't carry any data, so the -datacarrier/-datacarriersize options should not apply to them. Previously a transaction containing an OP_RETURN without data would be rejected if datacarrier was set to false, or the datacarriersize was set to zero.
💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "Feature request: alert PR author in case of CI failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27178#issuecomment-1470067183)
I am mostly thinking that merely assigning the author or applying a label does not provide enough information. Only pressing the re-run button is rarely the right choice (correct me if I am wrong):
* Intermittent Network failure (should be rare) -> Re-run (if "author" and "member"), else ask a maintainer for re-run.
* Pre-existing test failure -> Search/File issue, then Re-run.
* Test failure introduced in the pull -> Author needs to fix it.
But I guess, if the Label workflow is chosen,
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27178#issuecomment-1470067183)
I am mostly thinking that merely assigning the author or applying a label does not provide enough information. Only pressing the re-run button is rarely the right choice (correct me if I am wrong):
* Intermittent Network failure (should be rare) -> Re-run (if "author" and "member"), else ask a maintainer for re-run.
* Pre-existing test failure -> Search/File issue, then Re-run.
* Test failure introduced in the pull -> Author needs to fix it.
But I guess, if the Label workflow is chosen,
...
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ignore datacarrier limits for dataless OP_RETURN outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27261#issuecomment-1470071077)
Is the use-case idea to be able to a little more compactly burn a dusty output to OP_RETURN?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27261#issuecomment-1470071077)
Is the use-case idea to be able to a little more compactly burn a dusty output to OP_RETURN?
💬 petertodd commented on pull request "Ignore datacarrier limits for dataless OP_RETURN outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27261#issuecomment-1470081403)
> Is the use-case idea to be able to a little more compactly burn a dusty output to OP_RETURN?
Yes. For example, my dust-b-gone script uses a bare OP_RETURN output without data: https://github.com/petertodd/dust-b-gone/blob/95020b4d0280d5ad2c8973b2e981e5dd966e2315/merge-dust-txs.py#L70
To be clear, bare OP_RETURN is currently standard with the default datacarrier settings. All this pull-req changes is it'll allow a bare OP_RETURN in the (rare) case that people are disabling datacarrier out
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27261#issuecomment-1470081403)
> Is the use-case idea to be able to a little more compactly burn a dusty output to OP_RETURN?
Yes. For example, my dust-b-gone script uses a bare OP_RETURN output without data: https://github.com/petertodd/dust-b-gone/blob/95020b4d0280d5ad2c8973b2e981e5dd966e2315/merge-dust-txs.py#L70
To be clear, bare OP_RETURN is currently standard with the default datacarrier settings. All this pull-req changes is it'll allow a bare OP_RETURN in the (rare) case that people are disabling datacarrier out
...
💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor / kernel: Move non-gArgs chainparams functionality to kernel":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26177#issuecomment-1470084204)
re https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26177#pullrequestreview-1341271390
> Please advise maintainers if this should be merged and if you plan to address the nits (if any).
Yes, will address the nits. It think it's worth another round.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26177#issuecomment-1470084204)
re https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26177#pullrequestreview-1341271390
> Please advise maintainers if this should be merged and if you plan to address the nits (if any).
Yes, will address the nits. It think it's worth another round.
💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "refactor / kernel: Move non-gArgs chainparams functionality to kernel":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26177#issuecomment-1470098332)
Ok, but please don't address those that are marked "unrelated", as that would not be refactoring changes, but behavior changes/bugfixes.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26177#issuecomment-1470098332)
Ok, but please don't address those that are marked "unrelated", as that would not be refactoring changes, but behavior changes/bugfixes.
💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor / kernel: Move non-gArgs chainparams functionality to kernel":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26177#discussion_r1137163135)
This produces a log like:
```
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::runtime_error'
what(): CreateChainParams: Unknown chain lol
```
So I think yes, it does add value.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26177#discussion_r1137163135)
This produces a log like:
```
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::runtime_error'
what(): CreateChainParams: Unknown chain lol
```
So I think yes, it does add value.
💬 desirepl commented on issue "Bitcoin ignores datadir and blocksdir parameter in .conf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27246#issuecomment-1470110239)
bitcoin_wallet -datadir=*** info: "Failed to load database path '***'. Data is not in recognized format."
*** = any valid datadir/blocksdir/walletdir (only one wallet is in sqlite format, regtest)
bitcoin_wallet searches wallets on datadir? but for other tools there are walletdir parameter...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27246#issuecomment-1470110239)
bitcoin_wallet -datadir=*** info: "Failed to load database path '***'. Data is not in recognized format."
*** = any valid datadir/blocksdir/walletdir (only one wallet is in sqlite format, regtest)
bitcoin_wallet searches wallets on datadir? but for other tools there are walletdir parameter...
💬 vasild commented on pull request "addrman: Enable selecting addresses by network":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27214#discussion_r1137181909)
I think so, thanks!
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27214#discussion_r1137181909)
I think so, thanks!
👍 vasild approved a pull request: "addrman: Enable selecting addresses by network"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27214)
ACK 09d514583f15860f3bc7ae0c89e640c94fae3c71
Suggestions remaining (non-blocker):
* [Check out-of-bounds array access in AddrManImpl::GetEntry()](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27214#discussion_r1129439158).
* I can't find where the [suggested test](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27214#discussion_r1130705627) was added.
* Performance wise I think the change in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27214#discussion_r1130705627 would be very nice to have.
Thanks!
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27214)
ACK 09d514583f15860f3bc7ae0c89e640c94fae3c71
Suggestions remaining (non-blocker):
* [Check out-of-bounds array access in AddrManImpl::GetEntry()](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27214#discussion_r1129439158).
* I can't find where the [suggested test](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27214#discussion_r1130705627) was added.
* Performance wise I think the change in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27214#discussion_r1130705627 would be very nice to have.
Thanks!
...