(Refactor) QA: wallet_basic: Split wtx expected_fields over multiple lines to minimise merge conflicts #24293

This list seems to be high risk of, and trivial to reduce merge conflicts for.

<!--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:

• #24198 (wallet, rpc: add wtxid in WalletTxToJSON by brunoerg)

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.

I agree that expanding the list in multiple lines avoids the possible risk of merge conflicts.

But this section of code is not very actively edited by contributors. Specifically, this code section has been untouched since it was introduced two years ago.

Screenshot of Git Blame:

And at the time of writing this review, @DrahtBot is showing a single merge conflict (with #24198) for this PR.

So, considering the frequency with which this section is edited, would you still think this change deserves a separate PR of its own?

I think it would be better to add this commit along with #24198, as PR is already editing this section.

@shaavan If more people agree on adding it on #24198, I can do it, no problem.

I agree it would minimize merge conflicts, but I also don't think new fields are added often.

There's also #21260 and was #18570 (closed)

<!--cf906140f33d8803c4a75a2196329ecb-->

🐙 This pull request conflicts with the target branch and needs rebase.

_{Want to unsubscribe from rebase notifications on this pull request? Just convert this pull request to a "draft".}

There's also #21260 and was #18570 (closed)

#21260 ended up closed, and this now has a conflict, so should either be rebased or closed.

Closing for now. Feel free to rebase and reopen.