Remove unused args from GetFetchFlags() #10311

1. 
   btcdrak commented at 7:44 am on May 2, 2017: contributor
2. Remove unused args from GetFetchhFlags() 1ff2bb4e3e
3. dcousens approved
4. 
   dcousens commented at 8:11 am on May 2, 2017: contributor

   utACK
5. kallewoof approved
6. fanquake added the label Refactoring on May 2, 2017
7. 
   practicalswift commented at 2:04 pm on May 2, 2017: contributor

   utACK

   Nice find! Can’t believe I didn’t catch this one myself :-)

8. 
   paveljanik commented at 2:51 pm on May 2, 2017: contributor

   ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10311/commits/1ff2bb4e3e8edfa68797926be8aa3ab5949f2e0c
9. in src/net_processing.cpp:1165 in 1ff2bb4e3e

   1161@@ -1162,7 +1162,7 @@ void static ProcessGetData(CNode* pfrom, const Consensus::Params& consensusParam
   1162     }
   1163 }
   1164 
   1165-uint32_t GetFetchFlags(CNode* pfrom, const CBlockIndex* pprev, const Consensus::Params& chainparams) {
   1166+uint32_t GetFetchFlags(CNode* pfrom) {
   

   ---

   ---

   

   laanwj commented at 5:33 pm on May 2, 2017:

   Any idea why these were being passed? Looked back in history and to me it seems that CBlockIndex* pprev, const Consensus::Params& chainparams were never used at all, since introduced in b8a97498df1e83f8dcc49bc3fa4344f9e9799242. @sipa @NicolasDorier maybe?

   ---

   

   NicolasDorier commented at 6:59 am on May 3, 2017:

   Before GetFetchFlags was using IsWitnessEnabled, not fHaveWitnessand GetLocalServices
10. 
    paveljanik commented at 5:59 pm on May 2, 2017: contributor

    super-micro nit: can you please correct the function name in the commit message?
11. 
    sipa commented at 7:06 am on May 3, 2017: member

    Yeah, in older versions of the SegWit patch, fetch flags were based on the chain instead of explicit announcements. That led to too many edge cases to deal with, however. The dependency on pprev/params can safely go away.
12. 
    NicolasDorier commented at 9:35 am on May 3, 2017: contributor

    utACK
13. 
    laanwj commented at 9:44 am on May 3, 2017: member

    @sipa @NicolasDorier thanks for the explanation, so this change makes sense in that context utACK 1ff2bb4
14. laanwj merged this on May 3, 2017
15. laanwj closed this on May 3, 2017

    ---

16. laanwj referenced this in commit 22d870016e on May 3, 2017
17. MarcoFalke locked this on Sep 8, 2021

Contributors
btcdrak dcousens kallewoof practicalswift paveljanik laanwj NicolasDorier sipa

Labels
Refactoring