This is a follow-up PR to #16244
The following suggestions are included:
- Usage of
enum class
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16244#discussion_r296434142) - Placing out args at the end convention (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16244#discussion_r296434172)
- Return error when passphrase would be ignored because of disabled private keys (including functional test) (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16244#pullrequestreview-252015195)
- Make
status
return variable ofCreateWallet
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16244#discussion_r302107394) - Using a
switch
statement instead ofif/else
inRpcWallet
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16244#discussion_r302112502)
Not included was:
- “new create wallet function [could take] separate option arguments instead of wallet flags” (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16244#pullrequestreview-252015195)
- “blank wallet and disable private keys options could be combined into a single option” (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16244#pullrequestreview-252015195)
For these last two changes, I was not sure what an ideal solution could look like and/or this might be of slightly larger scope than the other changes, but I would be happy to work on these as well in this PR or another follow-up if I get positive feedback on that. Is there a place in the codebase that handles flags like these in a better way that I can refer to? Nonetheless, I would prefer keeping it in a separate PR unless it is a really simple change.