Skip to content

Conversation

@fanquake
Copy link
Member

@fanquake fanquake commented Jan 8, 2026

The test calls migrate_and_get_rpc(), which sets mock time internally.
The caller caches a mock time value and later relies on it to predict the
backup filename, so setting the mock time again could cause a naming
mismatch.

Fix this by calling the migration RPC directly. Since the test expects the
migration to fail, migrate_and_get_rpc() is unnecessary here.

Github-Pull: bitcoin#34221
Rebased-From: cbf0bd3
@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

DrahtBot commented Jan 8, 2026

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/34229.

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

Type Reviewers
ACK hebasto, willcl-ark, marcofleon
Stale ACK furszy

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

LLM Linter (✨ experimental)

Possible typos and grammar issues:

  • Bitcoin Core daemon version v30.2.0 bitcoind -> Bitcoin Core daemon bitcoind version v30.2.0 [current phrasing is awkward and can be confusing; reordering clarifies that "bitcoind" is the daemon name]

2026-01-09

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.

ACK 4606741

@davidgumberg
Copy link
Contributor

#34226 should probably be backported as well, this adds test cases for the relative path issue which existed before #34156.

Refactor a common way to perform the failed migration test that exists
for default wallets, and add relative-path wallets and absolute-path
wallets.

Github-Pull: bitcoin#34226
Rebased-From: eeaf28d
@fanquake fanquake marked this pull request as ready for review January 9, 2026 11:25
Copy link
Member

@hebasto hebasto left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ACK 04a996b, I have reviewed the code and it looks OK.

@DrahtBot DrahtBot requested a review from furszy January 9, 2026 11:32
Copy link
Member

@willcl-ark willcl-ark left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ACK 04a996b

Backports are clean and in release notes.

Copy link
Contributor

@marcofleon marcofleon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ACK 04a996b

@fanquake fanquake mentioned this pull request Jan 9, 2026
8 tasks
@fanquake fanquake changed the title [30.x] Backports & Final [30.2] Backports & Final Jan 9, 2026
@fanquake fanquake merged commit 4d7d5f6 into bitcoin:30.x Jan 9, 2026
20 checks passed
@fanquake fanquake deleted the 30_2_final branch January 9, 2026 14:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants