doc: Remove field in getblocktemplate help that has never been used. #12764
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
conscott
force-pushed
the
remove_unused_gbt_field
branch
2 times, most recently
from
b537924 to
ae743d1
Compare
Member
|
kicked travis, random timeout |
conscott
force-pushed
the
remove_unused_gbt_field
branch
2 times, most recently
from
127eae8 to
777515a
Compare
conscott
force-pushed
the
remove_unused_gbt_field
branch
from
777515a to
ac8a1d0
Compare
Member
|
Interesting, good catch. |
Contributor
|
Tested ACK ac8a1d0 |
Member
|
Anyone writing a client should read BIP22 and consider all its possible fields. IMO either we should document potentially-relevant ones in help, or only refer to the BIP instead. |
Member
|
utACK ac8a1d0. It would be misleading to mention the field here and then ignore it without notice. |
Contributor
| The last travis run for this pull request was 117 days ago and is thus outdated. To trigger a fresh travis build, this pull request should be closed and re-opened. |
maflcko
changed the title
maflcko
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 22, 2018
…er been used. ac8a1d0 [RPC] Remove field in getblocktemplate help that has never been used (Conor Scott) Pull request description: [BIP 22 - getblocktemplate](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0022.mediawiki#Transactions%20Object%20Format) specifies an optional flag, `required` if the transaction must be in the block. Luke's implementation #936 did not include this flag, and it was later added to the help description in #3246 (more than a year later) but the field was still never actually implemented. As far as I can tell, bitcoin core would have never actually included this in a `getblocktemplate` call, so it seems logical to remove it from the help description. If I am missing something or this is considered harmless - I can close the PR. Tree-SHA512: f25dda51cc4e1512aff69309be04e3053bdccc1cf03c8d58e8866aa1fdf9d86cc57df872e85528351fc8a8d6d64a8f46a36c513680834762d854f368fbeb0f44
deadalnix
pushed a commit
to Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc
that referenced
this pull request
May 8, 2020
…er been used. Summary: ac8a1d0 [RPC] Remove field in getblocktemplate help that has never been used (Conor Scott) Pull request description: [BIP 22 - getblocktemplate](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0022.mediawiki#Transactions%20Object%20Format) specifies an optional flag, `required` if the transaction must be in the block. Luke's implementation #936 did not include this flag, and it was later added to the help description in #3246 (more than a year later) but the field was still never actually implemented. As far as I can tell, bitcoin core would have never actually included this in a `getblocktemplate` call, so it seems logical to remove it from the help description. If I am missing something or this is considered harmless - I can close the PR. Tree-SHA512: f25dda51cc4e1512aff69309be04e3053bdccc1cf03c8d58e8866aa1fdf9d86cc57df872e85528351fc8a8d6d64a8f46a36c513680834762d854f368fbeb0f44 Backport of Core [[bitcoin/bitcoin#12764 | PR12764]] Test Plan: `ninja check` Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, deadalnix Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, deadalnix Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D6015
PastaPastaPasta
pushed a commit
to PastaPastaPasta/dash
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 17, 2020
…has never been used. ac8a1d0 [RPC] Remove field in getblocktemplate help that has never been used (Conor Scott) Pull request description: [BIP 22 - getblocktemplate](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0022.mediawiki#Transactions%20Object%20Format) specifies an optional flag, `required` if the transaction must be in the block. Luke's implementation dashpay#936 did not include this flag, and it was later added to the help description in dashpay#3246 (more than a year later) but the field was still never actually implemented. As far as I can tell, bitcoin core would have never actually included this in a `getblocktemplate` call, so it seems logical to remove it from the help description. If I am missing something or this is considered harmless - I can close the PR. Tree-SHA512: f25dda51cc4e1512aff69309be04e3053bdccc1cf03c8d58e8866aa1fdf9d86cc57df872e85528351fc8a8d6d64a8f46a36c513680834762d854f368fbeb0f44
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
8 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
BIP 22 - getblocktemplate specifies an optional flag,
requiredif the transaction must be in the block.Luke's implementation #936 did not include this flag, and it was later added to the help description in #3246 (more than a year later) but the field was still never actually implemented. As far as I can tell, bitcoin core would have never actually included this in a
getblocktemplatecall, so it seems logical to remove it from the help description.If I am missing something or this is considered harmless - I can close the PR.