< Bullit>
looks like it was demand ¨have valid signatures¨ from | portugese | British | German; can you restore chain to fa7ee5a64231be3b3d7c3ce598e933f6b71b89b29ce1a12a1b1d35540ed66558
< sipa>
??
< Bullit>
I was heavily opressed in free use of digital bitcoin currency by portugese british and german the response from law maker rotterdam was have valid signatures I can prove a chain to Bitonic with 47000 conformations as above hexdecimal
< luke-jr>
wat
< luke-jr>
is this a bot
< sipa>
i don't understand what you're saying, but in any case: it looks like your Bitcoin Core instance aborted unexpectedly, most likely due to a hardware issue or OOM
< sipa>
you may want to run with -par=1 on the command line if overheating is the problem, or run it on a better machine
< jonatack>
I've unsuccessfully been trying to make the following two depends builds locally to reproduce isolated unit test CI failures, any tips? At this point I can't tell if the test isn't portable or the 4-year old feature without test coverage isn't portable.
< jonatack>
All the CI jobs pass (bitcoin builds, cirrus, appveyor, travis) except those two travis jobs.
< jonatack>
in PR19951 "net, test: CNetAddr scoped ipv6 test coverage"
< sipa>
jonatack: why would you expect it to be portablem
< sipa>
they're a way to specify a local interface; how to do that sounds very dependent on the OS
< jonatack>
sipa: seems pretty edge-casey, what is usually done for unit tests in the presence of an edge case like that?
< sipa>
jonatack: i don't think you can unit test this
< sipa>
it's like a unit test to see if /home exists
< jonatack>
hm, i thought we'd want to have coverage where feasible, and handle + document the exceptions
< sipa>
it's just a string that's given to the OS, and it parses it for you
< sipa>
what strings work or don't is up to it
< jonatack>
right, but it seems a win to have regression tests that show our code works and that break if our code wrt the feature is broken or removed
< sipa>
yes, agree
< sipa>
but we also don't have a unit test that DNS resolving works, for example
< sipa>
if you want to test it, the best you can do is allow mocking it
< jonatack>
we don't currently have a way to skip a test for a specific job?
< sipa>
how do you mean?
< jonatack>
or if a unit test could know which ci script is calling it (thank you for the suggestion in the PR, trying that)
< phantomcircuit>
is it just me or is the part of travis that actually runs the jobs closed source?
< phantomcircuit>
no i guess im just blind actually there's instructions on stack overflow
< phantomcircuit>
nvm it's really convoluted, running all the jobs automatically is not trivial
< jonatack>
phantomcircuit: i'm embarrassed to say that i never tried following the info in ci/README.md before today
< jonatack>
thank you sipa, your suggestion helped