Bugfix: Wallet: ResubmitWalletTransactions: Only bump m_next_resend if actually doing a relay #26270

pull luke-jr wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from luke-jr:fix_wallet_nextresend_only_relaying changing 1 files +1 −1
  1. luke-jr commented at 12:10 AM on October 6, 2022: member

    Just the bugfix from #26205 (but reimplemented without refactoring)

  2. Bugfix: Wallet: ResubmitWalletTransactions: Only bump m_next_resend if actually doing a relay a44e9e23b8
  3. luke-jr renamed this:
    Bugfix: Wallet: ResubmitWalletTransactions: Only bump "next resend" time if actually doing a relay
    Bugfix: Wallet: ResubmitWalletTransactions: Only bump m_next_resend if actually doing a relay
    on Oct 6, 2022
  4. DrahtBot commented at 4:18 AM on October 6, 2022: contributor

    <!--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:

    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.

  5. stickies-v changes_requested
  6. stickies-v commented at 9:45 AM on October 6, 2022: contributor

    I'm not against a simple bugfix carve-out, but I think this is an incomplete fix because transactions can get rebroadcasted the first time ResubmitWalletTransactions is called with relay=True, as opposed to the expected behaviour where nothing will get rebroadcast in the first 12 hours.

    I think you need to either default initialize m_next_resend (the approach taken in #26205, which is why I first introduced GetDefaultNextResend()) or re-introduce the fFirst flag that #25768 removed and update wallet_resendwallettransactions.py to re-introduce the node.mockscheduler(60) call that was removed.

  7. maflcko commented at 1:24 PM on October 6, 2022: member

    Why not backport the whole #26205? This function was re-written from scratch anyway for 24.x/master, so doing another rewrite and keeping it the same for 24.x/master seems preferable than having two completely unrelated re-writes in each branch.

  8. luke-jr commented at 12:56 PM on October 7, 2022: member

    Ok, closing this then. If #26205 gets held up, I can reopen and address the initial send delay.

  9. luke-jr closed this on Oct 7, 2022

  10. bitcoin locked this on Oct 7, 2023

github-metadata-mirror

This is a metadata mirror of the GitHub repository bitcoin/bitcoin. This site is not affiliated with GitHub. Content is generated from a GitHub metadata backup.
generated: 2026-04-14 15:13 UTC

This site is hosted by @0xB10C
More mirrored repositories can be found on mirror.b10c.me