< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #18183: test: Set catch_system_errors=no on boost unit tests (master...2002-testNoCatchSystemErrors) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18183
< meshcollider>
achow101: 18034 needs another review imo, I'll review it this afternoon
< achow101>
meshcollider: great!
< elichai2>
wumpus: yeah makes sense. Just wanted to ask for people to review :)
< wumpus>
achow101: #18115 is based on it?
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18115 | wallet: Pass in transactions and messages for signing instead of exporting the private keys by achow101 · Pull Request #18115 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< achow101>
wumpus: yes
< wumpus>
ok, added
< elichai2>
gwillen: Does it need code review or testing the gui?
< gwillen>
provoostenator: it's your PR, opinion? ^
< gwillen>
I did gui testing to my own satisfaction at least
< instagibbs>
gwillen, it's fuzzy "I know it when I see it" :P
< gwillen>
yeah, *nod*. I did both a code review and GUI testing, I imagine it just needs "more eyes", so ideally both
< wumpus>
gwillen: pretty much: if the maintainer of the part of the code has enough confidence in it, you can help this by adding reviews / test reports
< instagibbs>
I can definitely take a look at that PR
< gwillen>
much appreciated
< wumpus>
it can differ very much by part of the code changed what kind and how much review/manual testing/fuzzing/analysis/etc is needed
< instagibbs>
what subsystems it touches, can people lose money if you're wrong, etc
< wumpus>
exactly
< wumpus>
I guess for PSBT GUI the most important thing is that people test it manually and it works as expected
< promag>
I'll see 17509 too
< hebasto>
btw, which devs reviews are more valuable for autotools related PRs?
< wumpus>
cfields_ dongcarl
< wumpus>
maybe luke-jr
< hebasto>
wumpus: ty
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #18187: Add --options runtime (runtime hardening) to macOS codesign (master...2020/02/macos_runtime_hardening) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18187
< wumpus>
I understand it enough to understand what the script does but not what's a good/least messy way of structuring autotools scripts, so definitely don't go by only my review there
< wumpus>
any other topics?
< jonatack>
#17208 could use review; this would allow us to build with -fsanitize=undefined
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17208 | Make all tests pass UBSan without using any UBSan suppressions by practicalswift · Pull Request #17208 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< fanquake>
I take it no one has found any new issues with rc2? I haven’t seen anything reported
< elichai2>
jonatack: will review it!
< * dongcarl>
back, looking
< wumpus>
oh that one looks a lot less scary than I expected, mostly affect progress reporting code
< wumpus>
the nBlocksTotal change in validation.cpp needs some eyes on it
< instagibbs>
yeah was about to say
< jonatack>
yes, that's the key change
< wumpus>
but there was also a previous PR that changed a lot of signed/unsigned integer arithmetic all over the place, glad it's not that
< wumpus>
fanquake: haven't seen anything reported either
< wumpus>
I guess we can tag 0.19.1 final fairly soon
< wumpus>
are the release notes ready?
< instagibbs>
wumpus, oh you told me another PR was going in, so I closed my 3 line fix for it :P
< fanquake>
Sure. There’s a few more things tagged for backport for 0.19, but I’m not convinced they are required for 0.19.1
< fanquake>
Unsure about the release notes though
< wumpus>
instagibbs: I don't remember having said that, which one?
< wumpus>
instagibbs: you mean I said I wanted to merge another PR for 0.19.1?
< instagibbs>
the UB PR, I had a 3 line fix, closed for later closed PR (not important just noting I had a similar fix)
< wumpus>
instagibbs: oh, a 3 line fix instead of #17208?
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17208 | Make all tests pass UBSan without using any UBSan suppressions by practicalswift · Pull Request #17208 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< instagibbs>
right
< wumpus>
depending on what the changed lines are that would be even better?
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #18188: test: Bump process time in scheduler_tests to avoid race (master...2002-testBumpSched) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18188
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #18188: test: Bump process time in scheduler_tests to avoid race (master...2002-testBumpSched) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18188
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] practicalswift closed pull request #17208: Make all tests pass UBSan without using any UBSan suppressions (master...ubsan-warnings) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17208
< provoostenator>
elichai2: re #1750 is the bare bones UI so let's not bike-shed it, gwillen has a pretty PR on top. But it does need testing and code review.