Remove redundant parameter fCheckDuplicateInputs from CheckTransaction(…) #14258

1. 
   practicalswift commented at 3:39 pm on September 18, 2018: contributor

   Remove redundant parameter fCheckDuplicateInputs from CheckTransaction(...).

   Diff without whitespace noise: ?w=1

2. Remove redundant parameter fCheckDuplicateInputs from CheckTransaction(...) 0172ba4a68
3. 
   DrahtBot commented at 5:45 pm on September 18, 2018: member
4. 
   MarcoFalke commented at 9:28 pm on September 18, 2018: member

   utACK 0172ba4a6800ac934f8b4712c27b5ccd66deb658
5. 
   donaloconnor commented at 9:54 pm on September 18, 2018: contributor

   utACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/0172ba4a6800ac934f8b4712c27b5ccd66deb658
6. MarcoFalke added the label Refactoring on Sep 19, 2018
7. 
   Empact commented at 4:09 am on September 19, 2018: member

   utACK 0172ba4
8. 
   promag commented at 12:22 pm on September 19, 2018: member

   utACK 0172ba4.
9. 
   TheBlueMatt commented at 1:06 pm on September 19, 2018: member

   NACK we’ll probably re-introduce the optimization at some point, let’s avoid the code churn.

   On September 18, 2018 3:42:40 PM UTC, practicalswift notifications@github.com wrote:

   Remove redundant parameter fCheckDuplicateInputs from CheckTransaction(...).

   Diff without whitespace noise: ?w=1 You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

   #14258

   – Commit Summary –

   • Remove redundant parameter fCheckDuplicateInputs from CheckTransaction(…)

   – File Changes –

   M src/consensus/tx_verify.cpp (15) M src/consensus/tx_verify.h (2) M src/validation.cpp (2)

   – Patch Links –

   https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14258.patch https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14258.diff

   – You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14258

10. practicalswift closed this on Sep 19, 2018

    ---

11. 
    promag commented at 5:51 pm on September 19, 2018: member

    IMO leaving unused code that can lead to bugs is worst than code churn. This can be reverted along with proper review/testing once and if necessary.
12. 
    donaloconnor commented at 6:16 pm on September 19, 2018: contributor

    I am in agreement with @promag and was about to say similar. I don’t see the issue with this PR.
13. practicalswift reopened this on Sep 19, 2018

    ---

14. 
    practicalswift commented at 9:27 pm on September 19, 2018: contributor

    Re-opened since consensus opinion seems to closer to be ACK side than the NACK side :-)
15. 
    promag commented at 9:37 pm on September 19, 2018: member

    @practicalswift to avoid noise please gather more comments before changing PR status.
16. 
    decorumvelox commented at 2:46 am on September 20, 2018: none

    utACK 0172ba4a6800ac934f8b4712c27b5ccd66deb658. It is safer to remove this unused code now. Any future optimizations should be written in a different way that is more clear and not easily misunderstood as benign.
17. 
    achow101 commented at 3:13 am on September 20, 2018: member

    utACK 0172ba4a6800ac934f8b4712c27b5ccd66deb658
18. 
    sipa commented at 6:08 am on September 20, 2018: member

    NACK right now.

    Let’s please take some time to study the reasons that caused the issue first before we touch this code further.

19. 
    laanwj commented at 6:12 am on September 20, 2018: member

    I agree with @sipa, cleaning up this code is not a priority now.
20. laanwj closed this on Sep 20, 2018

    ---

21. practicalswift deleted the branch on Apr 10, 2021
22. DrahtBot locked this on Aug 16, 2022

Contributors
practicalswift DrahtBot MarcoFalke donaloconnor Empact promag TheBlueMatt decorumvelox achow101 sipa laanwj

Labels
Refactoring