< sipa> wth
< sipa> if (CLIENT_NAME.size()) hasher.Write((const unsigned char*)CLIENT_NAME.c_str(), CLIENT_NAME.size() + 1);
< sipa> that line segfaults
< sipa> am i missing something obvious?
< sipa> CLIENT_NAME is an std::string
< luke-jr> sipa: stack corruption?
< sipa> luke-jr: unlikely; valgrind doesn't see anything wrong
< luke-jr> hmm
< sipa> hmm, maybe CLIENT_NAME hasn't been initialized yet
< sipa> stupid module initialization order
< * luke-jr> wondres why hash "Satoshi" anyway
< sipa> good point
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] HAOYUatHZ opened pull request #17350: doc: Add developer documentation to isminetype (master...doc_isminetype) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17350
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] RandyMcMillan opened pull request #17351: build:lint eliminate some lint spelling alerts (master...makeseeds-py) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17351
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonatack closed pull request #17338: wallet: rm unused LegacyScriptPubKeyMan& spk_man (master...rm-unused-spk-man-in-rpcdump) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17338
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #16769: build: Improve Windows uninstaller (master...uninstall.exe) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16769
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a5224be64541...964136695027
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a35b682 Jeremy Rubin: Add assertion to randrange that input is not 0
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9641366 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #17293: Add assertion to randrange that input is not 0
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #17293: Add assertion to randrange that input is not 0 (master...assert-randrange) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17293
< wumpus> PSA: I've invited jonatack to the bitcoin and bitcoin-core orgs, seems a frequent enough contributor, also sipsorcery a few days ago (I was surprised the MSVC build maintainer wasn't in the org yet)
< promag> wumpus: maybe see #16963?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16963 | wallet: Fix unique_ptr usage in boost::signals2 by promag . Pull Request #16963 . bitcoin/bitcoin . GitHub
< wumpus> promag: I honestly don't see myself qualified to review that
< wumpus> the inter-thread and notification logic around loading wallets is somewhat of a mystery to me
< promag> ok, maybe put in HP when possible
< wumpus> promag: ok
< promag> ty
< wumpus> some nice generative art by jeremyrubin https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17292#issuecomment-547592769
< darosior> wumpus: You want me to add a test for https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17328 but I can't, on regtest the `verificationprogress` will always be 1, even when not synced..
< wumpus> darosior: seems very bad if verificationprogress is untestable
< wumpus> looks like we indeed have no tests at all for it
< wumpus> its only mention in the tests is to check for presence of the key :)
< wumpus> if you're not up to this, you could open a new issue that we need tests for verificationprogress
< darosior> wumpus: I'm on it
< darosior> And I think my first sentence is nonsense: I just mistested
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/964136695027...463eab5e1418
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d6e493f Fabian Jahr: wallet: Remove left-over BIP70 comment
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3ed8e3d Fabian Jahr: doc: Remove explicit network name references
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 463eab5 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #17285: doc: Bip70 removal follow-up
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #17285: doc: Bip70 removal follow-up (master...bip70_followup) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17285
< michaelfolkson> Hey. I've asked a question on running unit tests on Mac OS using the `make check` command. If someone could help answer it, it would be appreciated. Thanks https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/91446/can-someone-explain-the-output-from-running-bitcoin-core-unit-tests-on-mac-os-pl
< wumpus> ^^ that's a good question,I've seen that output on linux too
< wumpus> the initial 0/0/0 summary is pointless
< sipa> that's the bitcoin core one; the other two are for sexp and leveldb i think
< wumpus> yes, the secp256k1 and the leveldb one make sense
< sipa> and the bitcoin core one is broken because of the hackery that let us run all unit tests in paralllel
< wumpus> right
< wumpus> the last one are the univalue tests, it seems we don't run the leveldb tests
< sipa> ah yes
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #17353: doc: Add ShellCheck to lint tests dependencies (master...20191102-lint-dependencies) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17353
< jonatack> Minor detail perhaps, but I see TOTAL: 1, PASS: 1 for the first 2 values in the summary because of PASS: qt/test/test_bitcoin-qt
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] promag opened pull request #17354: wallet: Tidy CWallet::SetUsedDestinationState (master...2019-11-setuseddestinationstate) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17354
< sipa> wumpus: ah, you answered, cool
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] za-kk opened pull request #17355: Grey out used address in address book (master...oct-19-17174) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17355
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #17356: RPC: Internal named params (master...internal_named_params) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17356
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sdaftuar closed pull request #17346: Remove F401 (warning for unused imports) from lint-python.sh (master...2019-11-python-linter-sucks) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17346