Commit Graph

5 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
MarcoFalke
4a3e3af6e7
Merge #20813: scripted-diff: Bump copyright headers
fa0074e2d82928016a43ca408717154a1c70a4db scripted-diff: Bump copyright headers (MarcoFalke)

Pull request description:

  Needs to be done because no one has removed the years yet

ACKs for top commit:
  practicalswift:
    ACK fa0074e2d82928016a43ca408717154a1c70a4db

Tree-SHA512: 210e92acd7d400b556cf8259c3ec9967797420cfd19f0c2a4fa54cb2b3d32ad9ae27e771269201e7d554c0f4cd73a8b1c1a42c9f65d8685ca4d52e5134b071a3
2024-04-10 03:19:34 +07:00
fanquake
9d33b30a87
Merge #19674: refactor: test: use throwaway _ variable for unused loop counters
dac7a111bdd3b0233d94cf68dae7a8bfc6ac9c64 refactor: test: use _ variable for unused loop counters (Sebastian Falbesoner)

Pull request description:

  This tiny PR substitutes Python loops in the form of `for x in range(N): ...` by `for _ in range(N): ...` where applicable. The idea is indicating to the reader that a block (or statement, in list comprehensions) is just repeated N times, and that the loop counter is not used in the body, hence using the throwaway variable. This is already done quite often in the current tests (see e.g. `$ git grep "for _ in range("`). Another alternative would be using `itertools.repeat` (according to Python core developer Raymond Hettinger it's [even faster](https://twitter.com/raymondh/status/1144527183341375488)), but that doesn't seem to be widespread in use and I'm not sure about a readability increase.

  The only drawback I see is that whenever one wants to debug loop iterations, one would need to introduce a loop variable again. Reviewing this is basically a no-brainer, since tests would fail immediately if a a substitution has taken place on a loop where the variable is used.

  Instances to replace were found by `$ git grep "for.*in range("` and manually checked.

ACKs for top commit:
  darosior:
    ACK dac7a111bdd3b0233d94cf68dae7a8bfc6ac9c64
  instagibbs:
    manual inspection ACK dac7a111bd
  practicalswift:
    ACK dac7a111bdd3b0233d94cf68dae7a8bfc6ac9c64 -- the updated code is easier to reason about since the throwaway nature of a variable is expressed explicitly (using the Pythonic `_` idiom) instead of implicitly. Explicit is better than implicit was we all know by now :)

Tree-SHA512: 5f43ded9ce14e5e00b3876ec445b90acda1842f813149ae7bafa93f3ac3d510bb778e2c701187fd2c73585e6b87797bb2d2987139bd1a9ba7d58775a59392406
2024-01-20 00:07:09 +07:00
MarcoFalke
8db2aabee0
Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#21989: test: Use COINBASE_MATURITY in functional tests
bfa9309ad606102f24c9bd3c33dfe78949f09418 Use COINBASE_MATURITY constant in functional tests. (Kiminuo)
525448df9dc2ab6b7e960ff138956ae3e2efdf60 Move COINBASE_MATURITY from `feature_nulldummy` test to `blocktools`. (Kiminuo)

Pull request description:

  `COINBASE_MATURITY` constant was added to `feature_nulldummy` test in #21373. This PR moves the constant to `blocktools.py` file and uses the constant in more tests as suggested [here](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21373#discussion_r605418462).

  Edit: Goal of this PR is to replace integer constants with `COINBASE_MATURITY` but not necessarily in *all* cases because that would mean to read and fully understand all tests. That's out of my time constraints. Any reports where `COINBASE_MATURITY` should be used are welcome though!

ACKs for top commit:
  theStack:
    ACK bfa9309ad606102f24c9bd3c33dfe78949f09418 🌇

Tree-SHA512: 01f04645f05a39028681f355cf3d42dd63ea3303f76d93c430e0fdce441934358a2d847a54e6068d61932f1b75e1d406f51859b057b3e4b569f7083915cb317f
2023-07-26 09:37:52 +05:30
Wladimir J. van der Laan
c31713b401 Merge #16471: [mempool] log correct messages when CPFP fails
42a5e912ee4e91a5191d659588f0605e1ada2f33 [mempool] log correct messages when CPFP fails (John Newbery)

Pull request description:

  Fixes a logging issue introduced in #15681

ACKs for top commit:
  laanwj:
    ACK 42a5e912ee4e91a5191d659588f0605e1ada2f33 (+utACK from bluematt that isn't registered because it has no commit id)

Tree-SHA512: ff5f423cc4d22838eea00c5b1d39ceda89cd61474c72f256a97c698eb0ec3f2156a97139f537669376132902c1e3943bf84c356a4b98a9a306b4ec57302c2761
2021-12-16 16:20:59 -05:00
Wladimir J. van der Laan
507c871ed5 Merge #15681: [mempool] Allow one extra single-ancestor transaction per package
50cede3f5a4d4fbfbb7c420b94e661a6a159bced [mempool] Allow one extra single-ancestor transaction per package (Matt Corallo)

Pull request description:

  This implements the proposed policy change from [1], which allows
  certain classes of contract protocols involving revocation
  punishments to use CPFP. Note that some such use-cases may still
  want some form of one-deep package relay, though even this alone
  may greatly simplify some lightning fee negotiation.

  [1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-November/016518.html

ACKs for top commit:
  ajtowns:
    ACK 50cede3f5a4d4fbfbb7c420b94e661a6a159bced -- looked over code again, compared with previous commit, compiles, etc.
  sdaftuar:
    ACK 50cede3f5a4d4fbfbb7c420b94e661a6a159bced
  ryanofsky:
    utACK 50cede3f5a4d4fbfbb7c420b94e661a6a159bced. Changes since last review: adding EXTRA_DESCENDANT_TX_SIZE_LIMIT constant, changing max ancestor size from 1,000,000 to nLimitAncestorSize constant (101,000), fixing test comment and getting rid of unused test node.

Tree-SHA512: b052c2a0f384855572b4579310131897b612201214b5abbb225167224e4f550049e300b471dbf320928652571e92ca2d650050b7cf39ac92b3bc1d2bcd386c1c
2021-12-16 16:20:59 -05:00