Skip to content

Conversation

rkrux
Copy link
Contributor

@rkrux rkrux commented May 23, 2025

I noted in review of a previous PR here: #32553 (review).

Relaying the same information in the RPC help that's present in a code comment:

bitcoin/src/wallet/wallet.h

Lines 809 to 810 in af65fd1

//! get the current wallet format (the oldest client version guaranteed to understand this wallet)
int GetVersion() const { LOCK(cs_wallet); return nWalletVersion; }

@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

DrahtBot commented May 23, 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/32603.

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

Type Reviewers
Stale ACK jonatack

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:

  • #32977 (wallet: Remove wallet version and several legacy related functions by w0xlt)

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.

Copy link
Member

@jonatack jonatack left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ACK 21ddfbf

modulo nit suggestion, and PR/commit title s/wallet, rpc/rpc, doc/

(suggest not linking to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32553#pullrequestreview-2853743852 in the commit message, as every push here adds a GitHub notification in that pull)

I noted in review of a previous PR 32553.

Relaying the same information in the RPC help that's present
in a code comment: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/af65fd1a333011137dafd3df9a51704fd319feb4/src/wallet/wallet.h#L809-L810
@rkrux rkrux force-pushed the wallet-version branch from 21ddfbf to 0585373 Compare May 24, 2025 07:42
@rkrux rkrux changed the title wallet, rpc: clarify wallet version in getwalletinfo help rpc, doc: clarify wallet version in getwalletinfo help May 24, 2025
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ static RPCHelpMan getwalletinfo()
{
{
{RPCResult::Type::STR, "walletname", "the wallet name"},
{RPCResult::Type::NUM, "walletversion", "the wallet version"},
{RPCResult::Type::NUM, "walletversion", "the current wallet format (the oldest client version guaranteed to understand this wallet)"},
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think this is right. The current wallet version is 169900 (for a freshly created descriptor wallet). However, I don't think a Bitcoin Core 16.99 client can open descriptor wallets at all.

Generally, all modules in Bitcoin Core moved away from the client version to use a module-specific and module-internal version. (You can see this when you look at all other files written (fee estimates, mempool, addr ...). Also the p2p version, but that again has been replaced by feature-messages.)

Copy link
Contributor Author

@rkrux rkrux May 24, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm I see. Thanks for highlighting. Descriptor wallets were indeed introduced after v16.99.

I'm not sure then what does the "client version" here refers to. Maybe it is referring to a wallet client somehow because as mentioned above that versioning has moved to being module specific.

I will dig more to see how this can be made clearer.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Are you still working on this, or can this be closed?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Closing this for now.

@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

🐙 This pull request conflicts with the target branch and needs rebase.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants