💬 furszy commented on pull request "Introduce `MockableDatabase` for wallet unit tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26715#discussion_r1140836779)
tiny nit:
```c++
return std::make_unique<MockableDatabase>(dynamic_cast<MockableDatabase&>(database).m_records);
```

💬 furszy commented on pull request "Introduce `MockableDatabase` for wallet unit tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26715#discussion_r1140832310)
this include doesn't seems to be needed here.

💬 amitiuttarwar commented on pull request "addrman: Enable selecting addresses by network":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27214#discussion_r1140873089)
maybe I was thinking of `BOOST_CHECK(!addrman->Select(/*new_only=*/true, NET_I2P).first.IsValid());`?

not sure, I [added](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/09d514583f15860f3bc7ae0c89e640c94fae3c71..17e705428ddf80c7a7f31fe5430d966cf08a37d6#diff-34d1a0e093152df355fc3a6b5b06156f7a9b936bfffb26bb221e62828e44532fR211) `BOOST_CHECK(!addrman->Select(/*new_only=*/true, NET_CJDNS).first.IsValid());` for real this time 🙃

💬 amitiuttarwar commented on pull request "addrman: Enable selecting addresses by network":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27214#discussion_r1140873566)
opted for the simple assertions because its less invasive & I didn't feel like there was a big advantage of switching over

💬 amitiuttarwar commented on pull request "addrman: Enable selecting addresses by network":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27214#issuecomment-1474557343)
two small updates:
- added assertions for bounds checking in `GetEntry`
- added the suggested test

💬 amitiuttarwar commented on pull request "p2p: Improve diversification of new connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27264#issuecomment-1474717814)
code review ACK 72e8ffd7f8dbf908e65da6d012ede914596737ab

👍 izlan90 approved a pull request: "p2p: Improve diversification of new connections"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27264)

💬 martinus commented on pull request "bench: update logging benchmarks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26957#discussion_r1140953637)
Benchmarks are registered into a `std::map` so they are alphabetically sorted anyways https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/bench/bench.h#L68

💬 martinus commented on pull request "bench: update logging benchmarks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26957#issuecomment-1474761651)
code review & tested ACK, here are my benchmark results:

| ns/op | op/s | err% | ins/op | cyc/op | IPC | bra/op | miss% | total | benchmark
|--------------------:|--------------------:|--------:|----------------:|----------------:|-------:|---------------:|--------:|----------:|:----------
| 3,822.12 | 261,634.61 | 0.3% | 22,931.00 | 8,536.02 | 2.686 | 4,512.00 | 0.1% | 0.5
...

💬 mxaddict commented on pull request "doc: fix typo in interface_usdt_utxocache.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27268#issuecomment-1474785590)
> I was under the impression PRs like this were pointless time-sinks on the maintainers' time.

Makes sense

✅ mxaddict closed a pull request: "doc: fix typo in interface_usdt_utxocache.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27268)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "refactor: wallet, do not translate init options names":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25666#issuecomment-1474788345)
lgtm ACK e43a547a3674a31504a60ede9b4912e014a54139

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "rpc, test: remove newline escape sequence from wallet warning fields":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27138#issuecomment-1474789198)
If the documentation for the field is unclear, what about changing the help text over changing the code?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "Separate RPC events from catch-all debug.log":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7199#issuecomment-1474790082)
Closing for now. If there is anything left to be done here, a new feature request can be submitted, or this one reopened.

✅ MarcoFalke closed an issue: "Separate RPC events from catch-all debug.log"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7199)

💬 Almas456 commented on issue "Improve porting documentation for legacy-only wallet RPCs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25363#issuecomment-1474812364)
The error message suggests that the RPC command you are trying to use, in this case 'importaddress', is not supported by the type of wallet you are using. Specifically, it seems that you are using a descriptor wallet, which does not support certain legacy-only wallet functions.

To solve the error, you can use an alternative RPC command that is compatible with descriptor wallets. In this case, you can use 'importdescriptors' instead of 'importaddress'. The 'importdescriptors' RPC command allow
...

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "p2p: Improve diversification of new connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27264#issuecomment-1474874497)
utACK

I was least sure about excluding netgroups that we have MANUAL connections to. As best as I can tell, @lightlike's [reason for doing so](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19860#issuecomment-1023522150) seems to be the strongest reason:

> On the other hand, even if you do trust them, there could still be attacks on an ISP level that would apply to multiple nodes from one group, so I think it makes sense to include them in the diversification as well.

I think that makes sense
...

💬 LarryRuane commented on pull request "bench: update logging benchmarks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26957#issuecomment-1474874821)
Here's a suggestion about benchmarking in general, wonder what you think. The idea is a kind of performance regression testing.

If there are a set of related benchmarks, as there are here, there may be some expected performance relationship between them. (Above I [suggested](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26957#pullrequestreview-1314607947) that Jon add a comment describing this relationship, and he [did](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26957/files#diff-b65a90c310b14b523533c7
...

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "rpc, test: remove newline escape sequence from wallet warning fields":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27138#issuecomment-1474881729)
Thanks for the reviews, everyone.

I'm not sure it makes sense to patch around this by adding code to our CLI to parse newline escape sequences, as that would be adding unneeded complexity for 4 messages instead of fixing the problem at the source in 4 LOC for something that's probably going away anyway (`warnings`), and only fixing it for us and not for other clients.

Elaborating that last point, the 4 escape sequences were added in pulls like #15937 without warning for client software to
...

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "bench: update logging benchmarks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26957#discussion_r1141095015)
As in `src/bench/peer_eviction.cpp` / `./src/bench/bench_bitcoin -filter='Eviction*.*'`, I add or keep the benchmark methods in the same alphabetical order as our bench framework prints them as a developer-friendly happiness measure. It's not required, but I think it's nice to do.