rpc: Clarify that block count means height excl genesis #16325
Merged
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
maflcko
force-pushed
the
1907-rpcBlockCount
branch
from
fa09371 to
fa609ed
Compare
maflcko
force-pushed
the
1907-rpcBlockCount
branch
from
fa609ed to
fab0c82
Compare
Contributor
|
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers. ConflictsNo conflicts as of last run. |
Member
|
utACK fab0c82 |
Member
This has always been the case, right? I know of no other block height definition than this. |
Member
Author
|
Yes, this has always been the case afaik. The documentation I am changing here was added in 22f721d (2010) |
Contributor
|
ACK fab0c82, sorry for the misconception. |
Member
Author
|
Eh, no worries. I look it up every time to be sure as well. |
laanwj
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 3, 2019
fab0c82 rpc: Clarify that block count means height excl genesis (MarcoFalke) Pull request description: There is a common misconception that the block count returned by the blockchain rpcs includes the genesis block. See for example the discussion in #16292 (comment). However, it really returns the height, which is `0` for the genesis block. So clarify that and also remove the misleading "longest blockchain" comment. Finally, fix the wallet test that incorrectly used this rpc. ACKs for top commit: instagibbs: utACK fab0c82 promag: ACK fab0c82, sorry for the misconception. Tree-SHA512: 0d087cbb628d3866352bca6420402f392e6a997e579941701a408a7fca355d84645045661f39b022e4479cc07f85a6cddaa9095b6fd9911b245692482420a5e4
Member
Yes, no worries, I kind of missed that the RPC call is called |
jasonbcox
pushed a commit
to Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 8, 2020
Summary: Description of PR: > There is a common misconception that the block count returned by the blockchain rpcs includes the genesis block. > However, it really returns the height, which is 0 for the genesis block. > So clarify that and also remove the misleading "longest blockchain" comment. > Finally, fix the wallet test that incorrectly used this rpc. Backport of Core [[bitcoin/bitcoin#16325 | PR16325]] Test Plan: ninja && ninja check-all src/bitcoin-cli help getbestblockhash src/bitcoin-cli help getbockcount Reviewers: O1 Bitcoin ABC, #bitcoin_abc, deadalnix Reviewed By: O1 Bitcoin ABC, #bitcoin_abc, deadalnix Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D7822
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
5 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.
There is a common misconception that the block count returned by the blockchain rpcs includes the genesis block. See for example the discussion in #16292 (comment).
However, it really returns the height, which is
0for the genesis block.So clarify that and also remove the misleading "longest blockchain" comment.
Finally, fix the wallet test that incorrectly used this rpc.