11:39 <laanwj> it looks like the "Drahtbot GUIX build requested" label isn't working

12:18 <pinheadmz> Is there a single RPC call to determine the change output of a transaction from my own wallet? So far im calling gettransaction then looping through vout with getaddressinfo

15:14 <furszy> pinheadmz: there isn't a simple way. gettransaction 'details' does not include change outputs.

15:15 <pinheadmz> should it? or if verbose, `decoded` could include the ischange flag in the vout array

15:16 <furszy> yeah, could add a 'include_change' flag.

15:16 <furszy> we are already doing it everywhere else

15:17 <laanwj> i think it'd make sense to add that to the verbose output (assuming it doesn't make "decoding" much less efficient), but include_change does something different, it shows change outputs where they'd normaly not be shown

15:19 <furszy> "it shows change outputs where they'd normaly not be shown" thats what the user would expect when it provides the flag.

15:20 <laanwj> then i'm misunderstanding the point here, i thought it did show all change and non-change outputs, and @pinheadmz wants to add a flag (to the output) to distinguish what is what

15:21 <furszy> gettransaction 'details' does not retrieve the change outputs. Thus why he is providing the verbose=1 flag to decode the entire tx, then loop through the vouts etc

15:22 <laanwj> ok

15:28 <furszy> internally; gettransaction loops over the outputs, organizes the info and returns a record for each output owned by the wallet. So, he is basically doing the work twice.

15:30 <pinheadmz> so perhaps makes the most sense to add "category":"change" in the "details" array

15:31 <pinheadmz> i dont think that would even necessitate a flag since we're already examining each txout?

15:32 <furszy> the 'change' category sounds good to me.

15:33 <furszy> the flag is at the RPC level, because we would be showing something that wasn't previously shown (at least not in this command).

15:53 <pinheadmz> hm yeah ok (about the flag) although i dunno how that could break a consumer of this RPC, its not like adding extra "receive" items...

19:48 <saffi> Hi Everyone !

19:48 <saffi> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29500

19:49 <saffi> I was going through this PR for python testcases and what it actually does is that it replaces all the != operator with assert not equal. in line with this I see there other operators like greater than and less than in the testcases will it make sense to also replace those with assert greater operators ?

21:28 <saffi> guys ?