Skip to content

backport: Merge bitcoin#29260, 28191, 27832#7201

Draft
vijaydasmp wants to merge 3 commits intodashpay:developfrom
vijaydasmp:March_2026_7
Draft

backport: Merge bitcoin#29260, 28191, 27832#7201
vijaydasmp wants to merge 3 commits intodashpay:developfrom
vijaydasmp:March_2026_7

Conversation

@vijaydasmp
Copy link

bitcoin backporting

282b12d refactor: remove CTxMemPool::queryHashes() (stickies-v)

Pull request description:

  `CTxMemPool::queryHashes()` is only used in `MempoolToJSON()`, where it can just as easily be replaced with the more general `CTxMemPool::entryAll()`. No behaviour change, just cleans up the code.

ACKs for top commit:
  dergoegge:
    Code review ACK 282b12d
  TheCharlatan:
    ACK 282b12d
  glozow:
    ACK 282b12d. Looks like there's no conflicts.

Tree-SHA512: 16160dec8e1f2457fa0f62dc96d2d2efd92c4bab810ecdb0e08918b8e85a667702c8e41421eeb4ea6abe92a5956a2a39a7a6368514973b78be0d22de2ad299b2
@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp changed the title backport: Merge bitcoin#29260, 28379 backport: Merge bitcoin#29260, 28379, 28191, 27832 Mar 5, 2026
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Mar 5, 2026

✅ No Merge Conflicts Detected

This PR currently has no conflicts with other open PRs.

@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp force-pushed the March_2026_7 branch 2 times, most recently from 060c553 to 426cae8 Compare March 6, 2026 15:46
@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp changed the title backport: Merge bitcoin#29260, 28379, 28191, 27832 backport: Merge bitcoin#29260, 28379, 28191, 27832, 27491 Mar 6, 2026
@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp force-pushed the March_2026_7 branch 4 times, most recently from e9db4d4 to 165bbb4 Compare March 7, 2026 00:26
@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp changed the title backport: Merge bitcoin#29260, 28379, 28191, 27832, 27491 backport: Merge bitcoin#29260, 28379, 28191, 27832 Mar 7, 2026
@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp changed the title backport: Merge bitcoin#29260, 28379, 28191, 27832 backport: Merge bitcoin#29260, 28191, 27832 Mar 7, 2026
fanquake added 2 commits March 7, 2026 06:29
…ters from BlockManager methods

fa69e3a Remove unused MessageStartChars parameters from BlockManager methods (MarcoFalke)

Pull request description:

  Seems odd to expose these for mocking, when it is not needed.

  Fix this by removing the the unused parameters and use the already existing member field instead.

ACKs for top commit:
  Empact:
    utACK fa69e3a
  dergoegge:
    utACK fa69e3a

Tree-SHA512: 7814e9560abba8d9c0926bcffc70f92e502d22f543af43671248f6fcd1433f35238553c0f05123fde6d8e0f80261af0ab0500927548115153bd68d57fe2da746
…ize=2 tests

faafc35 doc: Clarify that -datacarriersize applies to the full raw scriptPubKey, not the data push (MarcoFalke)
55550e7 test: Add -datacarriersize=2 tests (MarcoFalke)

Pull request description:

  Clarify with a test that `-datacarriersize` applies to the serialized size of the scriptPubKey, not the size of the pushed data. So for example,

  * `-datacarriersize=2` will reject a `raw(6a01aa)`, even though only one byte is pushed
  * `-datacarriersize=0` (or `-datacarrier=0`) will reject a `raw(6a)`, even though no byte is pushed
  * `-datacarriersize=0` (or `-datacarrier=0`) will reject a `raw(6a00)`, even though zero bytes are pushed

ACKs for top commit:
  ajtowns:
    ACK faafc35
  instagibbs:
    ACK bitcoin@faafc35

Tree-SHA512: f01ace02798f596ac2a02461e9f2a6ef91b3b37c976ea0b3bc860e2d3efb0ace0fd8b779dd18249cee7f84ebbe5fd21d8506afd3a15edadc00b843ff3b4aacc7
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.

3 participants