minor: fix extra "non" in source code comment #14965

in source code comment (one beginning with // and the second with //): We can't rescan beyond non-pruned blocks; the non looks to be a double negation.

I think the comment is correct. In other words, we can scan the non-pruned blocks but can't scan any further because the rest have been pruned, so we can't scan beyond the non-pruned blocks.

Accurate but seems there's confusion here - compare with the error strings that follow: "Can't rescan beyond pruned data", "last wallet synchronisation goes beyond pruned data"

Accurate but seems there's confusion here - compare with the error strings that follow: "Can't rescan beyond pruned data", "last wallet synchronisation goes beyond pruned data" @MeshCollider and so the error message https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/34241716852df6ea6a3543822f3bf6f886519d4b/src/wallet/rpcwallet.cpp#L3419 is it correct or should it be "Can't rescan beyond non-pruned data. Use RPC call getblockchaininfo to determine your pruned height."?

<!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

<!--174a7506f384e20aa4161008e828411d-->

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

• #14711 (Remove uses of chainActive and mapBlockIndex in wallet code by ryanofsky)
• #10973 (Refactor: separate wallet from node by ryanofsky)

If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.

This message has confused me from its introduction as well. It would be good to improve it, but I don't think removing non- makes it more clear what is meant. What is 'beyond' in this case? Does it mean "blocks below a certain block number which are no longer stored on disk"?

I'm closing this for now—it has been open long without progress for a documentation change—if someone wants to improve the documentation here, you're welcome to PR. @isghe if you want me to reopen this to continue work on this, that's great too.