💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1824943979)
I think this is resolved now with the rewrite of `ChangeSet::CalculateMemPoolAncestors()` -- let me know if you agree.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "include verbose "reject-details" field in testmempoolaccept response":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28121#discussion_r1824946074)
@pinheadmz could pop that field just like the check_mempool_result pops fee field?

📝 Sjors opened a pull request: "refactor: mining interface 30955 followups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31197)
This PR implements the refactors suggested in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30955#pullrequestreview-2354931253.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Mining interface: getCoinbaseMerklePath() and submitSolution()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30955#discussion_r1824953742)
Done in #31197, though I used `leaf_pos`.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Mining interface: getCoinbaseMerklePath() and submitSolution()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30955#discussion_r1824954017)
Done in #31197

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Mining interface: getCoinbaseMerklePath() and submitSolution()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30955#discussion_r1824954557)
Done in #31197

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1824955448)
I think I prefer letting the fuzzer pick it, so that I don't have to worry about whether there are other aspects of the transaction I'm overfitting (and thus getting worse coverage than if I let the fuzzer do all the work).

On the other hand, if there are certain transaction templates that we want to be sure are covered, then perhaps I can flip a bool and determine whether to use a pre-constructed transaction versus use one from the fuzzer.

I can't think of what that might be though, so
...

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1824957314)
this is fine, feel free to resolve it

💬 polespinasa commented on pull request "rpc, logging: return "verificationprogress" of 1 when up to date":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31177#issuecomment-2450524432)
Some calls to the function have duplicated the last argument to pass the tests, but it is necessary to see how to correctly pass the ``best_header``.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "depends, doc: List packages required to build `qt` package separately":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31192#issuecomment-2450525374)
Concept ACK.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "depends, doc: List packages required to build `qt` package separately":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31192#discussion_r1824962864)
I suggest either leaving out `apt install` or also naming `brew install` and friends, to make it clear this applies to all platforms.

📝 darosior opened a pull request: "init: warn, don't error, when '-upnp' is set"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31198)
It prevented the GUI from starting when its settings.json had the -upnp option set. This also doesn't prevent the node from running, so this error didn't need to be fatal.

Thanks to Sjors for bringing attention to what i broke and to Maflcko for suggestion a simple short term fix.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1824965387)
I can't imagine it would greatly effect performance of the fuzz target as it's a single transaction, but it might matter more if more are constructed like in the rest of the harness.

💬 Sjors commented on issue "Mining Interface doesn't allow for Bitcoin Core to create blocks when it wants":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31109#issuecomment-2450539742)
I made a note to add `waitNewPowBlock()` or something similar to the interface, but I think it can wait for a later release. And we should probably get some performance benchmarks to see if it's even worth it. It's possible that cluster mempool updates stuff so quickly we can just wait for it.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "init: warn, don't error, when '-upnp' is set":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31198#issuecomment-2450544709)
lgtm ACK a1b3ccae4be82297fd20f5be15a03eeb477507d0

I think the GUI will still need to be fixed either way. A warning is tolerable, but horrible UX, if the user can't do anything about it other than manually finding and editing the settings json file.

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1824996488)
Now I think I may have been mistaken; I've commented out this line and started fuzzing again, and I cannot reproduce the crash. Also, I agree with your assessment after re-reading the code some more.

However, it would be nice if the SubPackageState were clearly destroyed when it goes out of scope from logic that uses it... Even though it's seemingly not necessary to call cleanup here, it makes me a little uncomfortable to leave the code in a place where it takes some investigation to figure
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "rpc, logging: return "verificationprogress" of 1 when up to date":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31177#discussion_r1824994969)
Why is this clamping removed? Blocks can have a time in the future, and the changes in this pull don't change it, so it still seems possible to be hit? If not, it would be good explain why, or a unit test could be added to show that a block time in the future doesn't lead to a value larger than 1.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "rpc, logging: return "verificationprogress" of 1 when up to date":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31177#discussion_r1824997032)
Why is this fallback reasonable? It would be good to explain why, or remove it (require the argument to be passed). An alternative would be to make the function a member method on chainman. This way the call site doesn't have to pass `hindex` every time. If `hindex` is supposed to be different for different calls, it would be good to explain why.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "optimization: change XOR obfuscation key from `std::vector<std::byte>(8)` to `uint64_t`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#issuecomment-2450578651)
> I don't know how to access that, is it part of CI?

It needs to be run manually. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/master/ci#running-a-stage-locally. (`podman run --rm --privileged docker.io/multiarch/qemu-user-static --reset -p yes` may be required to setup qemu-s390x, depending on your setup). Then something like `MAKEJOBS="-j$(nproc)" FILE_ENV="./ci/test/00_setup_env_s390x.sh" ./ci/test_run_all.sh` should run it.



> Does the test suite pass on it otherwise or was it just c
...

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1825015423)
I'm very puzzled why none of the tests appear to fail on this commit.