Skip to content

Conversation

maflcko
Copy link
Member

@maflcko maflcko commented Nov 16, 2023

The flag is problematic for many reasons:

Fix all issues by removing it.

If there is a use-case, likely a per-RPC flag can be added, if needed.

@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

DrahtBot commented Nov 16, 2023

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

Code Coverage

For detailed information about the code coverage, see the test coverage report.

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

Type Reviewers
ACK ajtowns, TheCharlatan
Concept ACK fanquake, kristapsk

If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

  • #29007 (test: create deterministic addrman in the functional tests by stratospher)
  • #28528 (test: Use test framework utils in functional tests by osagie98)
  • #27433 (getblocktemplate improvements for segwit and sigops by Sjors)

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.

@fanquake
Copy link
Member

Concept ACK.

@ajtowns
Copy link
Contributor

ajtowns commented Nov 16, 2023

It is deprecated

It's only been deprecated in master for a couple of months; better to wait for it to actually be deprecated in the current release for a little while to give people a chance to complain if they're still relying on this functionality?

Otherwise, changes here look like what I'd expect.

If there is a use-case, likely a per-RPC flag can be added, if needed.

Could give bitcoin-util the capability to strip witness data from a block/tx and leave it up to users who need it, rather than making the RPC API more complex for what's presumably a very rare use case.

@maflcko
Copy link
Member Author

maflcko commented Nov 16, 2023

better to wait for it to actually be deprecated in the current release for a little while to give people a chance to complain if they're still relying on this functionality?

Happy to wait, but there shouldn't be any merge conflicts, so it should be trivial to just type git revert cleanly in the rare case that the deprecation will be undone. If the deprecation isn't undone, I don't see a need to delay for another release, because anyone affected can stay at 26.0, for as long as they need to change their code.

@maflcko maflcko force-pushed the 2311-no-rpc-tx-ser-flag- branch from fa54f2c to fa46cc2 Compare December 11, 2023 17:22
@maflcko
Copy link
Member Author

maflcko commented Dec 27, 2023

The deprecation was covered in https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2023/09/20/ and 26.0 was released a few weeks ago. Unless anyone heard someone complain, this seems good to move forward now?

@kristapsk
Copy link
Contributor

Concept ACK

@ajtowns
Copy link
Contributor

ajtowns commented Dec 29, 2023

The deprecation was covered in https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2023/09/20/ and 26.0 was released a few weeks ago. Unless anyone heard someone complain, this seems good to move forward now?

Given we're doing a short cycle, probably should either merge this soon for 27.0 or defer it to 28.0 and merge it shortly after branch off. No opinion either way on that personally.

crACK fa46cc2

@DrahtBot DrahtBot requested review from fanquake and removed request for ajtowns December 29, 2023 10:41
Copy link
Contributor

@TheCharlatan TheCharlatan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm ACK fa46cc2

If there is a use-case, likely a per-RPC flag can be added, if needed.

@fanquake fanquake merged commit 143ace6 into bitcoin:master Jan 5, 2024
@maflcko maflcko deleted the 2311-no-rpc-tx-ser-flag- branch January 5, 2024 10:47
@theuni
Copy link
Member

theuni commented Jan 5, 2024

Post-merge utACK fa46cc2. Nice cleanup :)

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants