-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 37.7k
fixups for BIP125 doc cleanup #25902
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Grammar and readability fixups. Clarifies "bip125-replaceable" helpstrings.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm
@@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ static std::vector<RPCResult> MempoolEntryDescription() | |||
{RPCResult{RPCResult::Type::STR_HEX, "transactionid", "parent transaction id"}}}, | |||
RPCResult{RPCResult::Type::ARR, "spentby", "unconfirmed transactions spending outputs from this transaction", | |||
{RPCResult{RPCResult::Type::STR_HEX, "transactionid", "child transaction id"}}}, | |||
RPCResult{RPCResult::Type::BOOL, "bip125-replaceable", "Whether this transaction could be replaced due to BIP125 (replace-by-fee)"}, | |||
RPCResult{RPCResult::Type::BOOL, "bip125-replaceable", "Whether this transaction signals BIP125 replaceability or has an unconfirmed ancestor signaling BIP125 replaceability.\n"}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For reference, this change adds clarification around the #22209 misunderstanding
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, hopefully this can close that.
This comment was helpful background for me: #25575 (comment)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, depending on the user there might still be a need for just finding out the signal of this tx, not taking into account the ancestors.
So I think we could return two bools, or an enum, see #25575 (comment)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So I think we could return two bools, or an enum, see #25575 (comment)
either would make sense imo 🤷
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ACK 375ebad
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ACK 375ebad
Thanks for the fixups
Followups from #25775: