💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "qa: Verify clean shutdown on startup failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30660#discussion_r2052883498)
https://docs.python.org/3/library/subprocess.html#subprocess.TimeoutExpired.output claims:
> This is always [bytes](https://docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html#bytes) when any output was captured

Can we simplify to:

```suggestion
child_output = e.output.decode("utf-8") if e.output else ""
```

?

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "qa: Verify clean shutdown on startup failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30660#discussion_r2052899485)
I'm not a fan of a incomplete iteration, can we separate the generator expression to the first line, something like:
```suggestion
class_name = next((arg[16:] for arg in sys.argv if arg.startswith('--internal_test=')), None)
```
or use a regexp to deduplicate the match and substring (untested):
```suggestion
class_name = next((m[1] for arg in sys.argv if (m := re.match(r'--internal_test=(.*)', arg))), None)
```

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "qa: Verify clean shutdown on startup failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30660#discussion_r2052915468)
do we need regular expression matching here or can we use `output.count("Traceback")` as well?
```suggestion
if (n := output.count("Traceback")) != 1:
```

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "qa: Verify clean shutdown on startup failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30660#discussion_r2052891901)
nit: `assert False` is a bit hacky in my opinion - can we use the same style that we did on line 60?
```suggestion
print("Should have failed earlier during startup.")
raise
```

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "qa: Verify clean shutdown on startup failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30660#discussion_r2052912020)
If I understand this correctly, we may want to preserve the seed properties - and xor preserves the distribution properties better than addition:
```suggestion
args.append(f"--randomseed={self.options.randomseed ^ hash(expected_exception)}")
```

Q: is `hash` expected to be stable between runs - or is that not important here?

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "qa: Verify clean shutdown on startup failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30660#discussion_r2052904553)
Based on the checks we're doing on `e` at the top, `error_num` can potentially be `None` here - is that expected?

💬 darosior commented on pull request "miner: timelock the coinbase to the mined block's height":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32155#issuecomment-2819380673)
I have added a commit to also set nLocktime / nSequence for coinbase transactions created in fuzz targets.

> The churn in the first commit is pretty annoying.

@Sjors (from this and in-person discussions) i have split as much as possible of the changes from this commit into preparatory commits. Now there is in the main commit only the necessary churn to keep commits hygienic. Hopefully it helps.

👋 achow101's pull request is ready for review: "wallet: Automatically repair corrupted metadata with doubled derivation path"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29124)

💬 achow101 commented on issue "Old wallet.dat: Error reading wallet database: keymeta found with unexpected path / All keys read correctly, but transaction data or address metadata may be missing or incorrect":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29109#issuecomment-2819389756)
Apparently migrating the legacy wallet to descriptors is also a way to fix this issue.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "test: Test that migration automatically repairs corrupted metadata with doubled derivation path":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29124#issuecomment-2819392003)
Removed the fix commit since we are expecting legacy wallets to go away soon, and migration is a valid way to fix this problem. The remaining test commit is updated to work without the automatic repair being logged. It additionally is changed to check that no `keymeta` records exist after the migration.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "rpc: Allow fullrbf fee bump in (psbt)bumpfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31953#issuecomment-2819404698)
ACK fa86190e6ed2aeda7bcceaf96f52403816bcd751

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "rpc: Allow fullrbf fee bump in (psbt)bumpfee"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31953#pullrequestreview-2782156380)
ACK fa86190e6ed2aeda7bcceaf96f52403816bcd751

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "multiprocess: Add bitcoin wrapper executable":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31375#issuecomment-2819431273)
Rebased 8892cb50db63656991e4d411ab804a9535f991a0 -> 81c0b9edfe533afbb2f4dda56142afdedffdb347 ([`pr/wrap.28`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/wrap.28) -> [`pr/wrap.29`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/wrap.29), [compare](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/compare/pr/wrap.28-rebase..pr/wrap.29)) due to conflict with #31862. Also dropped check for `build/src` directory no longer needed after #31161

This PR is scheduled for a review club discussion in a few weeks
...

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "rpc: Allow fullrbf fee bump in (psbt)bumpfee"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31953)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "bench: close wallets after migration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32309#issuecomment-2819442462)
Is a benchmark that runs only once actually useful?

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "bench: close wallets after migration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32309#issuecomment-2819455310)
Not sure, we can decide to delete it as well - I'll push tomorrow a fixed version based on @furszy's recommendation (but have to retest it first after my benchmarking servers free up again).
@furszy, is this still relevant or would deleting it be simpler?

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "test: Fix feature_pruning test after nTime typo fix":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32312#issuecomment-2819486409)
tACK 2aa63d511affdcc9980b58fc4ff18b8ad10b0f8c

Just a note: If this test was run by CI we would need to flip the order of the commits because the first commit would fail without the second but the second would succeed without the first. There is a CI job that runs every commit individually. But since this test isn't executed by CI it doesn't matter here.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "bench: close wallets after migration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32309#issuecomment-2819504455)
I guess it is useful as a spot check, but the accuracy is not very good.

Concept ACK

Tested on Windows and it worked. Was also able to reproduce failure 3, but don't know how to reproduce failure 2.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "miner: timelock the coinbase to the mined block's height":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32155#discussion_r2052998450)
Ah, I see. I also tried to come up with something, but did not land on anything satisfying either. Was briefly thinking of adding an optional field in the `BlockCreateOptions`, but that would defeat the point.

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "miner: timelock the coinbase to the mined block's height"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32155#pullrequestreview-2782260132)
ACK 895beb30b375c04804e9596ed798ab56730dcae1