[bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #14092: tests: Dry run bench_bitcoin as part "make check" to allow for quick identification of assertion/sanitizer failures in benchmarking code (master...dry-run-of-bench_bitcoin-as-part-of-check-local) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14092
bitcoin/master dfef0df practicalswift: tests: Dry run bench_bitcoin (-evals=1 -scaling=0: <1 second running time) as part "make check" to allow for quick identification of assertion/sanitizer failures in benchmarking code
bitcoin/master 73a8408 MarcoFalke: Merge #14092: tests: Dry run bench_bitcoin as part "make check" to allow for quick identification of assertion/sanitizer failures in benchmarking code...
you're working on rust? why aren't you in #rust-bitcoin
well, I have a working rust bitcoin-cli. it's not bitcoin-cli, bitcoin-cli has all sorts of edge cases i can't be bothered to emulate because there's ~0 chance of getting a rust binary in the repo anyway.
esotericnonsense: for some upgrades (though not 4th digit changes...) you may end up with difference in version between bitcoind and bitcoin-cli
Arvidt: non-specific to bitcoin, the binary changing out from underneath it shouldn't matter
When doing tar -xzf bitcoin-0.17.0.1-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz it extracts to the folder bitcoin-0.17.0/ . I would suggest that it extracts to the folder bitcoin-0.17.0.1/ because I have a symlink "current" to the newest version, and now, my old binary tree of 0.17.0 got simply overwritten with the 0.17.0.1 version, while I was still running 0.17.0 with that binary tree :-( But it looks
[bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #14602: Bugfix: Correctly calculate balances when min_conf is used, and for getbalance("*") (master...bugfix_rpc_getbalance_untrusted) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14602