Skip to content

Conversation

@saikiran57
Copy link
Contributor

Fix related to issue: #31263

@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

DrahtBot commented Jan 16, 2025

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Code Coverage & Benchmarks

For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/31668.

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

Type Reviewers
Concept ACK rkrux

If your review is incorrectly listed, please copy-paste <!--meta-tag:bot-skip--> into the comment that the bot should ignore.

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

  • #33874 (wallet: refactor ProcessDescriptorImport by naiyoma)
  • #32861 (Have createwalletdescriptor auto-detect an unused(KEY) by Sjors)
  • #32784 (wallet: derivehdkey RPC to get xpub at arbitrary path by Sjors)
  • #29136 (wallet: addhdkey RPC to add just keys to wallets via new unused(KEY) descriptor by achow101)

If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.

LLM Linter (✨ experimental)

Possible typos and grammar issues:

  • dont' -> don't [apostrophe in "dont'" is misplaced; should be "don't" to be correct and clear]

2026-01-03

@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed.
Debug: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/runs/35699494417

Hints

Try to run the tests locally, according to the documentation. However, a CI failure may still
happen due to a number of reasons, for example:

  • Possibly due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being
    incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest
    commit of the target branch.

  • A sanitizer issue, which can only be found by compiling with the sanitizer and running the
    affected test.

  • An intermittent issue.

Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.

@maflcko
Copy link
Member

maflcko commented Jan 16, 2025

This needs a test and the tests fixed

@fanquake
Copy link
Member

Moved to draft for now. You'll need to squash your commits, and address the various review feedback.

@fanquake fanquake marked this pull request as draft February 20, 2025 20:47
@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

DrahtBot commented Mar 3, 2025

🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed.
Debug: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/runs/38094021491

Hints

Try to run the tests locally, according to the documentation. However, a CI failure may still
happen due to a number of reasons, for example:

  • Possibly due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being
    incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest
    commit of the target branch.

  • A sanitizer issue, which can only be found by compiling with the sanitizer and running the
    affected test.

  • An intermittent issue.

Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.

@DrahtBot DrahtBot removed the CI failed label Mar 3, 2025
@saikiran57 saikiran57 marked this pull request as ready for review March 3, 2025 12:13
@saikiran57 saikiran57 force-pushed the set_rescan_option_import_descriptors branch from 54a20e6 to c353883 Compare March 3, 2025 13:56
@mprenditore
Copy link

Moved to draft for now. You'll need to squash your commits, and address the various review feedback.

@fanquake code has been updated as per the discussions and all checks are now passing.
Hope now it's good to be merged.

@davidrobinsonau
Copy link

Cloned fresh bitcoin src, then "gh pr checkout 31668" and built on Ubuntu WSL2.
Confirmed importdescriptors with "timestamp":"now" causes "RescanFromTime: Rescanning last 16 blocks".
Confirmed importdescriptors with "timestamp":"never" returns in less then a second and no messages about rescanning blocks on bitcoind console.
Thank you!

@mprenditore
Copy link

Hello @maflcko @furszy @fanquake
Can this be merged now?

@saikiran57 saikiran57 force-pushed the set_rescan_option_import_descriptors branch 2 times, most recently from 630210e to 1ac3559 Compare March 19, 2025 15:56
Copy link
Contributor

@w0xlt w0xlt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It would be good to add test cases for the "never" option.

@saikiran57 saikiran57 force-pushed the set_rescan_option_import_descriptors branch from 1ac3559 to 8ebba0a Compare April 8, 2025 08:02
@saikiran57 saikiran57 force-pushed the set_rescan_option_import_descriptors branch from 8ebba0a to 7f3bb5c Compare April 8, 2025 11:02
Copy link
Member

@furszy furszy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Instead of using timestamp=never, which is not really descriptive. What about using new?

@saikiran57 saikiran57 force-pushed the set_rescan_option_import_descriptors branch 2 times, most recently from 2a2fbec to 1960799 Compare December 9, 2025 07:25
@saikiran57 saikiran57 force-pushed the set_rescan_option_import_descriptors branch from 1960799 to ee38847 Compare December 10, 2025 07:44
@saikiran57 saikiran57 force-pushed the set_rescan_option_import_descriptors branch from 33f26e4 to 625bbd4 Compare December 10, 2025 07:46
@saikiran57 saikiran57 force-pushed the set_rescan_option_import_descriptors branch from 625bbd4 to 5fbef21 Compare December 26, 2025 09:25
Copy link
Contributor

@rkrux rkrux left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code review 5fbef21

Suggested few changes.

@saikiran57 saikiran57 force-pushed the set_rescan_option_import_descriptors branch from 5fbef21 to 3458d90 Compare December 30, 2025 10:14
@saikiran57 saikiran57 force-pushed the set_rescan_option_import_descriptors branch from 2c30351 to 0b407dd Compare December 30, 2025 10:25
@rkrux
Copy link
Contributor

rkrux commented Dec 30, 2025

Please squash the third commit as it's a lint fix, ref:

bitcoin/CONTRIBUTING.md

Lines 202 to 230 in 2bcb3f6

### Squashing Commits
If your pull request contains fixup commits (commits that change the same line of code repeatedly) or too fine-grained
commits, you may be asked to [squash](https://git-scm.com/docs/git-rebase#_interactive_mode) your commits
before it will be reviewed. The basic squashing workflow is shown below.
git checkout your_branch_name
git rebase -i HEAD~n
# n is normally the number of commits in the pull request.
# Set commits (except the one in the first line) from 'pick' to 'squash', save and quit.
# On the next screen, edit/refine commit messages.
# Save and quit.
git push -f # (force push to GitHub)
Please update the resulting commit message, if needed. It should read as a
coherent message. In most cases, this means not just listing the interim
commits.
If your change contains a merge commit, the above workflow may not work and you
will need to remove the merge commit first. See the next section for details on
how to rebase.
Please refrain from creating several pull requests for the same change.
Use the pull request that is already open (or was created earlier) to amend
changes. This preserves the discussion and review that happened earlier for
the respective change set.
The length of time required for peer review is unpredictable and will vary from
pull request to pull request.

Also, please resolve the comments in the PR that have been addressed already to make it easier for others to go through the PR.

@saikiran57 saikiran57 force-pushed the set_rescan_option_import_descriptors branch from 0b407dd to 9bd280c Compare December 30, 2025 11:19
@saikiran57
Copy link
Contributor Author

hi @achow101 I've fixed all the review comments. Can you please approve this pr and merge it if everything is okay.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants