π tdb3 approved a pull request: "test: deduplicates p2p_tx_download constants"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31758#pullrequestreview-2582739849)
ACK efeaf2e0c1f0de0d7c3819eb9beaefee2ddf0710
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31758#pullrequestreview-2582739849)
ACK efeaf2e0c1f0de0d7c3819eb9beaefee2ddf0710
π¬ tdb3 commented on pull request "test: deduplicates p2p_tx_download constants":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31758#discussion_r1934897557)
Maybe it's worth migrating some of these to `p2p.py` as well?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31758#discussion_r1934897557)
Maybe it's worth migrating some of these to `p2p.py` as well?
π¬ ryanofsky commented on pull request "cmake: Set top-level target output locations":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31161#issuecomment-2623350369)
> > Not sure what you mean about breaking existing tooling though?
>
> I have several scripts which aid me in building and testing prs. These already have to figure out when to use autotools and when to use cmake. With this PR, these would now all need to figure out where the binaries live, and that seems to be significantly less trivial to do than detecting autotools or cmake.
I think it would be nice not just for tools but also for developers to just create symlinks from the old to new lo
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31161#issuecomment-2623350369)
> > Not sure what you mean about breaking existing tooling though?
>
> I have several scripts which aid me in building and testing prs. These already have to figure out when to use autotools and when to use cmake. With this PR, these would now all need to figure out where the binaries live, and that seems to be significantly less trivial to do than detecting autotools or cmake.
I think it would be nice not just for tools but also for developers to just create symlinks from the old to new lo
...
π¬ Aldocapurro commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1934939474)
En espaΓ±ol porfavor
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1934939474)
En espaΓ±ol porfavor
π¬ pythcoiner commented on pull request "miniscript: account for all `StringType` variants in `Miniscriptdescriptor::ToString()`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31734#discussion_r1934941277)
done
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31734#discussion_r1934941277)
done
π¬ pythcoiner commented on pull request "miniscript: account for all `StringType` variants in `Miniscriptdescriptor::ToString()`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31734#discussion_r1934941378)
done
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31734#discussion_r1934941378)
done
π¬ pythcoiner commented on pull request "miniscript: account for all `StringType` variants in `Miniscriptdescriptor::ToString()`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31734#discussion_r1934941489)
done
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31734#discussion_r1934941489)
done
π¬ pythcoiner commented on pull request "miniscript: account for all `StringType` variants in `Miniscriptdescriptor::ToString()`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31734#discussion_r1934941602)
done
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31734#discussion_r1934941602)
done
π¬ pythcoiner commented on pull request "miniscript: account for all `StringType` variants in `Miniscriptdescriptor::ToString()`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31734#issuecomment-2623406968)
Thanks for the review @hodlinator! comments addressed & added more details to the summary
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31734#issuecomment-2623406968)
Thanks for the review @hodlinator! comments addressed & added more details to the summary
π¬ ryanofsky commented on pull request "multiprocess: Add bitcoin wrapper executable":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31375#issuecomment-2623415052)
Rebased 5e0196c8e0d1687bcf59a9569bb8b7268d1f195d -> 0e4ee158cadc3eb8f6af1b33440ae9a95fe19487 ([`pr/wrap.17`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/wrap.17) -> [`pr/wrap.18`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/wrap.18), [compare](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/compare/pr/wrap.17-rebase..pr/wrap.18)) to fix conflict
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31375#issuecomment-2623415052)
Rebased 5e0196c8e0d1687bcf59a9569bb8b7268d1f195d -> 0e4ee158cadc3eb8f6af1b33440ae9a95fe19487 ([`pr/wrap.17`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/wrap.17) -> [`pr/wrap.18`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/wrap.18), [compare](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/compare/pr/wrap.17-rebase..pr/wrap.18)) to fix conflict
π¬ ryanofsky commented on pull request "cmake: Move internal binaries from bin/ to libexec/":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31679#issuecomment-2623417011)
Updated 2a952710661a1990ed1c24b0ebd16de8ac0df87c -> 47a872236e070814ad74922d3f8a653e1c6af968 ([`pr/libexec.1`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/libexec.1) -> [`pr/libexec.2`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/libexec.2), [compare](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/compare/pr/libexec.1..pr/libexec.2)) to fix CI error
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31679#issuecomment-2623417011)
Updated 2a952710661a1990ed1c24b0ebd16de8ac0df87c -> 47a872236e070814ad74922d3f8a653e1c6af968 ([`pr/libexec.1`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/libexec.1) -> [`pr/libexec.2`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/libexec.2), [compare](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/compare/pr/libexec.1..pr/libexec.2)) to fix CI error
π¬ Eunovo commented on pull request "Benchmark Chainstate::ConnectBlock duration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31689#discussion_r1934978868)
> so why not create the `CTxOut` vector directly when we are creating the `scriptpubkeys` vector and then pass the `CTxOut` vector in as an argument?
I updated the PR to do that.
> I also think a comment explicitly mentioning we are creating an same number input, same number output transaction would be worth adding.
I also added a comment stating this
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31689#discussion_r1934978868)
> so why not create the `CTxOut` vector directly when we are creating the `scriptpubkeys` vector and then pass the `CTxOut` vector in as an argument?
I updated the PR to do that.
> I also think a comment explicitly mentioning we are creating an same number input, same number output transaction would be worth adding.
I also added a comment stating this
π¬ Eunovo commented on pull request "Benchmark Chainstate::ConnectBlock duration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31689#issuecomment-2623477551)
I've updated the code to take a reference to the underlying test_setup object following @TheCharlatan and @josibake reviews. I've also added more comments explaining how the transactions in the test block are created.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31689#issuecomment-2623477551)
I've updated the code to take a reference to the underlying test_setup object following @TheCharlatan and @josibake reviews. I've also added more comments explaining how the transactions in the test block are created.
π¬ Eunovo commented on pull request "Benchmark Chainstate::ConnectBlock duration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31689#issuecomment-2623504472)
> My first guess is the extra time is coming from hashing the transaction multiple times for the different signature digest algorithms? Just a guess; will need to dig into the code more to understand.
I'm pretty sure this is the case after looking in `interpreter.cpp`. I added a comment explaining this
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31689#issuecomment-2623504472)
> My first guess is the extra time is coming from hashing the transaction multiple times for the different signature digest algorithms? Just a guess; will need to dig into the code more to understand.
I'm pretty sure this is the case after looking in `interpreter.cpp`. I added a comment explaining this
π i-am-yuvi approved a pull request: "test: fixes p2p_ibd_txrelay wait time"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31759#pullrequestreview-2582919327)
ACK 1973a9e4f1dfba57051135d6e1bca80979de3879
Good catch!
```
p2p_ibd_txrelay.py | β Passed | 2 s
ALL | β Passed | 2 s (accumulated)
Runtime: 2 s
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31759#pullrequestreview-2582919327)
ACK 1973a9e4f1dfba57051135d6e1bca80979de3879
Good catch!
```
p2p_ibd_txrelay.py | β Passed | 2 s
ALL | β Passed | 2 s (accumulated)
Runtime: 2 s
```
π i-am-yuvi approved a pull request: "test: deduplicates p2p_tx_download constants"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31758#pullrequestreview-2582964859)
ACK efeaf2e0c1f0de0d7c3819eb9beaefee2ddf0710
```
TEST | STATUS | DURATION
p2p_tx_download.py | β Passed | 33 s
ALL | β Passed | 33 s (accumulated)
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31758#pullrequestreview-2582964859)
ACK efeaf2e0c1f0de0d7c3819eb9beaefee2ddf0710
```
TEST | STATUS | DURATION
p2p_tx_download.py | β Passed | 33 s
ALL | β Passed | 33 s (accumulated)
```
π i-am-yuvi approved a pull request: "test: make sure we are on sync with a peer before checking if they have sent a message"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31760#pullrequestreview-2583021496)
ACK 3f4b104b1b7e1b87c0be8e395e02b6ae3c5d7b08
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31760#pullrequestreview-2583021496)
ACK 3f4b104b1b7e1b87c0be8e395e02b6ae3c5d7b08
π¬ Sjors commented on pull request "rpc: have getblocktemplate mintime account for timewarp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31600#issuecomment-2623772947)
@fjahr the new rule only applies to blocks at `height % 2016 == 0`, so I'm confused about the heights you found.
The change here only affects what miners put in their blocks, it doesn't change the consensus check. So it shouldn't be dangerous in any case.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31600#issuecomment-2623772947)
@fjahr the new rule only applies to blocks at `height % 2016 == 0`, so I'm confused about the heights you found.
The change here only affects what miners put in their blocks, it doesn't change the consensus check. So it shouldn't be dangerous in any case.
π¬ Sjors commented on pull request "ci: build multiprocess on most jobs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30975#issuecomment-2623801480)
The "test each commit" job jails on 36db25f0bcaab6af9358faaad9214d5b77a71cb2 which is part of #31741:
```
Start 5: mptest
Unable to find executable: /home/runner/work/bitcoin/bitcoin/build/src/ipc/libmultiprocess/test/mptest
```
The ASan + LSan job also fails over missing mptest.
The macOS 14 native no depends job fails with https://github.com/chaincodelabs/libmultiprocess/issues/138.
The tidy job found several issues:
```
[13:27:31.569] /ci_container_base/src/ipc/libmultipr
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30975#issuecomment-2623801480)
The "test each commit" job jails on 36db25f0bcaab6af9358faaad9214d5b77a71cb2 which is part of #31741:
```
Start 5: mptest
Unable to find executable: /home/runner/work/bitcoin/bitcoin/build/src/ipc/libmultiprocess/test/mptest
```
The ASan + LSan job also fails over missing mptest.
The macOS 14 native no depends job fails with https://github.com/chaincodelabs/libmultiprocess/issues/138.
The tidy job found several issues:
```
[13:27:31.569] /ci_container_base/src/ipc/libmultipr
...
π¬ Sjors commented on pull request "multiprocess: Add libmultiprocess git subtree":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31741#issuecomment-2623803509)
I found several issue while unleashing the CI on these changes: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30975#issuecomment-2623801480
Let me know which ones you want to address here, and which can be dealt with later.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31741#issuecomment-2623803509)
I found several issue while unleashing the CI on these changes: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30975#issuecomment-2623801480
Let me know which ones you want to address here, and which can be dealt with later.