bugfix, Change up submitpackage results to return results for all transactions

instagibbs commented at 9:10 pm on November 10, 2023: member

This was prompted by errors being returned that didn’t “make any sense” to me, because it would for example return a “fee too low” error, when the “real” error was the child had something invalid, which disallowed CPFP evaluation. Rather than make judgment calls on what error is important(which is currently just return the “first”!), we simply return all errors and let the callers determine what’s best.

Added a top level package_msg for quick eye-balling of general success of the package.

This PR also fixes a couple bugs:

Currently we don’t actually broadcast a transaction, even if it was entered into our mempool, if a subsequent transaction causes PKG_TX failure.
“other-wtxid” is uncovered by tests, but IIUC was previously required to return “fees” and “vsize” results, but did not. I just make those results optional.

DrahtBot commented at 9:10 pm on November 10, 2023: contributor

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

Code Coverage

For detailed information about the code coverage, see the test coverage report.

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

Type	Reviewers
ACK	glozow, Sjors, achow101
Stale ACK	darosior

If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

#28950 (RPC: Add maxfeerate and maxburnamount args to submitpackage by instagibbs)
#27591 (rpc: distinguish between vsize and sigop-adjusted mempool vsize by glozow)

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.

instagibbs renamed this:
~~Change up submitpackage results~~
Change up submitpackage results to return results for all transactions
on Nov 10, 2023

instagibbs renamed this:
~~Change up submitpackage results to return results for all transactions~~
bugfix, Change up submitpackage results to return results for all transactions
on Nov 10, 2023

instagibbs force-pushed on Nov 10, 2023

DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Nov 10, 2023

DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Nov 10, 2023

instagibbs force-pushed on Nov 10, 2023

DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Nov 10, 2023

DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Nov 10, 2023

in src/rpc/mempool.cpp:856 in e77b702e3b outdated

852                             }},
853                         }},
854+                        {RPCResult::Type::STR, "error", /*optional=*/true, "The transaction error string, if it was rejected by the mempool"},
855                     }}
856                 }},
857                 {RPCResult::Type::ARR, "replaced-transactions", /*optional=*/true, "List of txids of replaced transactions",

glozow commented at 9:25 am on November 11, 2023:

Maybe add an “success” field for the full package, for convenience? Otherwise the user has to iterate through all the results to find out whether everything got submitted (which is likely the most common result in practice?)

instagibbs commented at 3:17 pm on November 13, 2023:

added a top-level “package-msg” response which is “success” when everything goes through.

I also changed the logic to allow PCKG_POLICY to continue if there are transaction results, because this can happen if single transactions make it in, then a subsequent subpackage hits chain limits and is rejected.

instagibbs commented at 3:17 pm on November 13, 2023:

I will squash if/when we decide this is a good direction

glozow commented at 3:49 pm on November 13, 2023:

Makes sense to me. I’m in favor of returning all the information that we can to the user

instagibbs force-pushed on Nov 13, 2023

in src/rpc/mempool.cpp:900 in ddd9224f09 outdated

900-                case PackageValidationResult::PCKG_POLICY:
901+                case PackageValidationResult::PCKG_RESULT_UNSET:
902                 {
903-                    throw JSONRPCTransactionError(TransactionError::INVALID_PACKAGE,
904-                        package_result.m_state.GetRejectReason());
905+                    // Everything in the package should be submitted

glozow commented at 4:23 pm on November 13, 2023:

Comment says “Everything in the package should be submitted” but you’re only checking that the results exist in m_tx_results. Do you want to check that mempool.exists(wtxid) as well?

instagibbs commented at 6:11 pm on November 13, 2023:

I think the check would be for Txid since different witness isn’t considered a failure? added

glozow commented at 6:34 pm on November 13, 2023:

yeah makes sense

in src/rpc/mempool.cpp:926 in ddd9224f09 outdated

944             }
945+
946             size_t num_broadcast{0};
947             for (const auto& tx : txns) {
948+                // We don't want to re-submit the txn for validation in BroadcastTransaction
949+                if (!mempool.exists(GenTxid::Txid(tx->GetHash()))) {

glozow commented at 4:27 pm on November 13, 2023:

Is using txid intentional here? If you use txid, BroadcastTransaction will rebroadcast the mempool tx if the result was DIFFERENT_WITNESS. If you use wtxid, we skip it.

instagibbs commented at 6:11 pm on November 13, 2023:

From my understanding: The current behavior in master is to re-broadcast anything in our mempool provided the txid matches something in the proposed package. If something in our mempool matches the txid, we (re)BroadcastTransaction. If it’s not in our mempool, it means it was rejected, and we don’t want to re-validate one by one.

I think this is the behavior we want.

glozow commented at 5:01 pm on November 27, 2023:

Ah true, agree

in src/rpc/mempool.cpp:930 in ddd9224f09 outdated

948+                // We don't want to re-submit the txn for validation in BroadcastTransaction
949+                if (!mempool.exists(GenTxid::Txid(tx->GetHash()))) {
950+                    continue;
951+                }
952+
953+                // We do not expect an error here; we are only broadcasting things already/still in mempool

glozow commented at 4:31 pm on November 13, 2023:

“all transactions were submitted” is not necessarily true anymore, no?

instagibbs commented at 6:11 pm on November 13, 2023:

fixed

in src/rpc/mempool.cpp:893 in ddd9224f09 outdated

889@@ -888,34 +890,57 @@ static RPCHelpMan submitpackage()
890             Chainstate& chainstate = EnsureChainman(node).ActiveChainstate();
891             const auto package_result = WITH_LOCK(::cs_main, return ProcessNewPackage(chainstate, mempool, txns, /*test_accept=*/ false));
892 
893-            // First catch any errors.
894+            std::map<Wtxid, std::optional<std::string>> wtixd_to_error_strings;

glozow commented at 4:38 pm on November 13, 2023:

wtxid

0            std::map<Wtxid, std::optional<std::string>> wtxid_to_error_strings;

glozow commented at 4:38 pm on November 13, 2023:

also, why have this intermediate map? can’t you do this in the loop at the end that populates rpc_result?

instagibbs commented at 6:11 pm on November 13, 2023:

removed the cruft

in src/rpc/mempool.cpp:839 in ddd9224f09 outdated

835@@ -836,19 +836,21 @@ static RPCHelpMan submitpackage()
836         RPCResult{
837             RPCResult::Type::OBJ, "", "",
838             {
839+                {RPCResult::Type::STR, "package-msg", "The transaction package result message. \"success\" indicates all transactions were accepted into or are already in the mempool."},

glozow commented at 4:49 pm on November 13, 2023:

Prefer using underscores #27501 (review)

instagibbs commented at 6:11 pm on November 13, 2023:

done

instagibbs force-pushed on Nov 13, 2023

DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Nov 13, 2023

DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Nov 13, 2023

in src/rpc/mempool.cpp:825 in d72aab3dbd outdated

821@@ -822,7 +822,7 @@ static RPCHelpMan submitpackage()
822     return RPCHelpMan{"submitpackage",
823         "Submit a package of raw transactions (serialized, hex-encoded) to local node.\n"
824         "The package must consist of a child with its parents, and none of the parents may depend on one another.\n"
825-        "The package will be validated according to consensus and mempool policy rules. If all transactions pass, they will be accepted to mempool.\n"
826+        "The package will be validated according to consensus and mempool policy rules. If a transaction passes, it will be accepted to mempool.\n"

Sjors commented at 11:42 am on November 23, 2023:

a -> any ?

Sjors commented at 11:52 am on November 23, 2023:

Maybe add: “A transaction that’s already in the mempool is [ignored, rebroadcast?].”

instagibbs commented at 4:21 pm on November 27, 2023:

a -> any ?

taken

Maybe add: “A transaction that’s already in the mempool is [ignored, rebroadcast?].”

Do we want to promise that? I’m ambivalent for now.

in src/rpc/mempool.cpp:824 in d72aab3dbd outdated

821@@ -822,7 +822,7 @@ static RPCHelpMan submitpackage()
822     return RPCHelpMan{"submitpackage",
823         "Submit a package of raw transactions (serialized, hex-encoded) to local node.\n"
824         "The package must consist of a child with its parents, and none of the parents may depend on one another.\n"

Sjors commented at 11:49 am on November 23, 2023:

consist of parents followed by exactly one child,

instagibbs commented at 4:21 pm on November 27, 2023:

leaving un-touched, I think current text is correct

Sjors commented at 12:26 pm on November 23, 2023: member

Mmm, excuse my ignorance, but shouldn’t the minimum relay fee be ignored for packages? (Update: I see this is documented: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/policy/packages.md#package-fees-and-feerate, perhaps we could introduce a (test-only) startup argument to allow it? I’ll bring this up in #26933)

I created two transactions while offline, wiping the mempool afterwards. To simulate a busy mempool, I set the -minrelaytxfee to 100, giving the parent a little bit less, and the child a little more than the minimum.

0src/bitcoind -signet -minrelaytxfee=0.00100
1src/bitcoin-cli -signet submitpackage '["02000000000101f7307b92590b1a7d82e878258a62ffaad05d0db510e947c3c331fe7400469cac0000000000fdffffff029d0c05020000000016001453dcf718842726f5236d0c05b1a5d43e12097731a086010000000000160014acdaaab857365e45724557f835694bdbb0c81231014009e5f00ec66eb80f497b771e2eb10cff222c60dc6b1fe865e5371142b1a02af7fbef913b0bc3bd49be679240e3c87bcde58532e53f657f9805352a43da036c965d9a0200", "02000000000101806ee5976b955c424940808f784fe92f746915a4d875dce994f3f72d8c8529aa0000000000fdffffff021027000000000000160014acdaaab857365e45724557f835694bdbb0c812317da7040200000000160014ef9af76b063593e215f4b861b61944b2e27624f60247304402200ac3df7c7e29df622a487ff075b8d224843e06f0848e16b2f02c55f9210eff9c0220133366f78a0191a74efbc348d2269326b6e27e11b885dd5b77a011de8a357fa00121031526c3e43061b7c9259695e75c512f5456b2dcb66ee475ece29b36688b1c35785d9a0200"]'

 0{
 1  "package_msg": "transaction failed",
 2  "tx-results": {
 3    "43bb567b00ba2d4424441af6702f841f0953e7aadd18adb475a84d5986186199": {
 4      "txid": "aa29858c2df7f394e9dc75d8a41569742fe94f788f804049425c956b97e56e80",
 5      "error": "min relay fee not met, 12838 < 13000"
 6    },
 7    "dff806dff6456a11d8cd2318615ae5234a4e4d60662731fc39db2857472af4c9": {
 8      "txid": "930455a47e5339e702cab0c435172a5497ff3af6d160d16224c9e9ad08cd8592",
 9      "error": "bad-txns-inputs-missingorspent"
10    }
11  },
12  "replaced-transactions": [
13  ]
14}

Also why is tx-results not an array like the input? (also to make it easier to sanity check that I didn’t submit them the wrong way around)

(I can see how, for a script that submits transaction packages, this dictionary makes it easier to get feedback for specific transactions. For manual submission and debugging it’s easier to keep the same ordering, but this may not be a common use case.)

instagibbs commented at 2:19 pm on November 23, 2023: member

@Sjors I think you can set -minrelaytxfee=0 to work around it?

Sjors commented at 2:56 pm on November 23, 2023: member

@Sjors I think you can set -minrelaytxfee=0 to work around it?

That doesn’t simulate a full mempool though.

I wrote a commit that lets my example go through: https://github.com/Sjors/bitcoin/commit/03baacd7643daf3d1c8efbc1a723719d8cc72dce

However, not sure if it’s worth the extra complexity.

in test/functional/mempool_limit.py:209 in d72aab3dbd outdated

205@@ -205,7 +206,7 @@ def test_mid_package_eviction(self):
206 
207         # Package should be submitted, temporarily exceeding maxmempool, and then evicted.
208         with node.assert_debug_log(expected_msgs=["rolling minimum fee bumped"]):
209-            assert_raises_rpc_error(-26, "mempool full", node.submitpackage, package_hex)
210+            node.submitpackage(package_hex)

Sjors commented at 3:10 pm on November 23, 2023:

Do you still want to check “mempool full” like below?

instagibbs commented at 4:21 pm on November 27, 2023:

the check itself is a little weird, so I just double-checked that the package failed. The later checks should check invariants.

Sjors commented at 3:21 pm on November 23, 2023: member

Anyway, my two main issues are about pre-existing behavior: tx-results was already a dictionary and -minrelaytxfee already behaved that way.

d72aab3dbd8847e851f8b724b195181e30e7bf02 looks good, but I’m (obviously) not familiar enough with mempool stuff to know for sure.

instagibbs force-pushed on Nov 27, 2023

instagibbs commented at 4:21 pm on November 27, 2023: member

Also why is tx-results not an array like the input? (also to make it easier to sanity check that I didn’t submit them the wrong way around)

If they’re submitted “backwards” they’ll be rejected.

(I can see how, for a script that submits transaction packages, this dictionary makes it easier to get feedback for specific transactions. For manual submission and debugging it’s easier to keep the same ordering, but this may not be a common use case.)

Right, I think this is 99%+ of the use-cases. “typical” usage of manual transaction creation should generate transactions with sufficient fees for an attempt at inclusion in a block.

instagibbs commented at 5:09 pm on November 27, 2023: member

all feedback is resolved

Sjors commented at 1:42 pm on November 28, 2023: member

ACK 4fb3340a1ac678165e6821645e6aa1e06f34921a

in test/functional/rpc_packages.py:339 in 4fb3340a1a outdated

334@@ -334,8 +335,10 @@ def test_submitpackage(self):
335 
336         self.log.info("Submitpackage only allows packages of 1 child with its parents")
337         # Chain of 3 transactions has too many generations
338+        legacy_pool = node.getrawmempool()
339         chain_hex = [t["hex"] for t in self.wallet.create_self_transfer_chain(chain_length=25)]

darosior commented at 8:26 am on November 29, 2023:

Side note: should it be a chain of 3 transactions?

instagibbs commented at 2:52 pm on November 29, 2023:

it means “at least 3”, but you’re right this is probably too permissive a check. Not touching for now but can if people want me to.

glozow commented at 3:22 pm on November 29, 2023:

would be nice to fix, maybe in a followup

darosior commented at 11:53 am on November 29, 2023: member

Concept ACK

Currently we don’t actually broadcast a transaction, even if it was entered into our mempool, if a subsequent transaction causes PKG_TX failure.

Let’s have a test for this?

 0diff --git a/test/functional/rpc_packages.py b/test/functional/rpc_packages.py
 1index 6507f6267b..5ae805ccf0 100755
 2--- a/test/functional/rpc_packages.py
 3+++ b/test/functional/rpc_packages.py
 4@@ -340,6 +340,20 @@ class RPCPackagesTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
 5         assert_raises_rpc_error(-25, "package topology disallowed", node.submitpackage, chain_hex)
 6         assert_equal(legacy_pool, node.getrawmempool())
 7 
 8+        # Create a transaction chain such as only the parent gets accepted (by making the child's
 9+        # version non-standard). Make sure the parent does get broadcast.
10+        self.log.info("If a package is partially submitted, transactions included in mempool get broadcast")
11+        peer = node.add_p2p_connection(P2PTxInvStore())
12+        txs = self.wallet.create_self_transfer_chain(chain_length=2)
13+        hex_partial_acceptance = [txs[0]["hex"], "f" + txs[1]["hex"][1:]]
14+        res = node.submitpackage(hex_partial_acceptance)
15+        assert_equal(res["package_msg"], "transaction failed")
16+        first_wtxid = txs[0]["tx"].getwtxid()
17+        assert "error" not in res["tx-results"][first_wtxid]
18+        sec_wtxid = next(wtxid for wtxid in res["tx-results"] if wtxid != first_wtxid)
19+        assert_equal(res["tx-results"][sec_wtxid]["error"], "version")
20+        peer.wait_for_broadcast([first_wtxid])
21+
22 
23 if __name__ == "__main__":
24     RPCPackagesTest().main()

The equivalent on master wouldn’t pass:

 0diff --git a/test/functional/rpc_packages.py b/test/functional/rpc_packages.py
 1index 5644a9f5a8..d64c30bfe0 100755
 2--- a/test/functional/rpc_packages.py
 3+++ b/test/functional/rpc_packages.py
 4@@ -337,6 +337,12 @@ class RPCPackagesTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
 5         chain_hex = [t["hex"] for t in self.wallet.create_self_transfer_chain(chain_length=25)]
 6         assert_raises_rpc_error(-25, "package topology disallowed", node.submitpackage, chain_hex)
 7 
 8+        peer = node.add_p2p_connection(P2PTxInvStore())
 9+        txs = self.wallet.create_self_transfer_chain(chain_length=2)
10+        hex_partial_acceptance = [txs[0]["hex"], "f" + txs[1]["hex"][1:]]
11+        assert_raises_rpc_error(-26, "version", node.submitpackage, hex_partial_acceptance)
12+        peer.wait_for_broadcast([txs[0]["tx"].getwtxid()])
13+
14 
15 if __name__ == "__main__":
16     RPCPackagesTest().main()

darosior commented at 12:28 pm on November 29, 2023: member

ACK 4fb3340a1ac678165e6821645e6aa1e06f34921a

I considered suggesting to backport this at first, in light of #27609. But i don’t think the fix for relaying the parent transaction if the child fails validation matters much for this usecase (mining pool calling submitpackage). At least, not enough to warrant a backport this late i’d say.

instagibbs commented at 2:51 pm on November 29, 2023: member

@darosior thanks, took the test with minor modifications to not do hex-surgery :)

darosior commented at 2:54 pm on November 29, 2023: member

much-less-fun ACK 24c345f89ecad54223e42f8cf084ef3c5ed5f0c0

DrahtBot requested review from Sjors on Nov 29, 2023

in src/rpc/mempool.cpp:845 in 4fb3340a1a outdated

842                     {RPCResult::Type::OBJ, "wtxid", "transaction wtxid", {
843                         {RPCResult::Type::STR_HEX, "txid", "The transaction hash in hex"},
844                         {RPCResult::Type::STR_HEX, "other-wtxid", /*optional=*/true, "The wtxid of a different transaction with the same txid but different witness found in the mempool. This means the submitted transaction was ignored."},
845-                        {RPCResult::Type::NUM, "vsize", "Virtual transaction size as defined in BIP 141."},
846-                        {RPCResult::Type::OBJ, "fees", "Transaction fees", {
847+                        {RPCResult::Type::NUM, "vsize", /*optional=*/true, "Virtual transaction size as defined in BIP 141."},

glozow commented at 2:58 pm on November 29, 2023:

Not changed here but I think the doc should actually say sigop-adjusted virtual size, no?

instagibbs commented at 4:32 pm on November 29, 2023:

pushed a fixup commit on top

in src/rpc/mempool.cpp:981 in 4fb3340a1a outdated

976@@ -959,6 +977,8 @@ static RPCHelpMan submitpackage()
977                             replaced_txids.insert(ptx->GetHash());
978                         }
979                     }
980+                } else {
981+                    NONFATAL_UNREACHABLE();

glozow commented at 3:02 pm on November 29, 2023:

nit/followup: This could instead be a compile-time check if the if/else blocks are converted to a switch statement on result type

instagibbs commented at 4:32 pm on November 29, 2023:

done

in test/functional/mempool_limit.py:375 in 4fb3340a1a outdated

369@@ -366,7 +370,9 @@ def run_test(self):
370         assert_greater_than(worst_feerate_btcvb, (parent_fee + child_fee) / (tx_parent_just_below["tx"].get_vsize() + tx_child_just_above["tx"].get_vsize()))
371         assert_greater_than(mempoolmin_feerate, (parent_fee) / (tx_parent_just_below["tx"].get_vsize()))
372         assert_greater_than((parent_fee + child_fee) / (tx_parent_just_below["tx"].get_vsize() + tx_child_just_above["tx"].get_vsize()), mempoolmin_feerate / 1000)
373-        assert_raises_rpc_error(-26, "mempool full", node.submitpackage, [tx_parent_just_below["hex"], tx_child_just_above["hex"]])
374+        res = node.submitpackage([tx_parent_just_below["hex"], tx_child_just_above["hex"]])
375+        for wtxid in [tx_parent_just_below["wtxid"], tx_child_just_above["wtxid"]]:
376+            res["tx-results"][wtxid]["error"] == "mempool full"

glozow commented at 3:06 pm on November 29, 2023:

Are we trying to assert that this is true? Pretty sure this just keeps going if the expression is False

0            assert_equal(res["tx-results"][wtxid]["error"], "mempool full")

instagibbs commented at 4:32 pm on November 29, 2023:

oops, taken

in src/rpc/mempool.cpp:916 in 4fb3340a1a outdated

925-                        }
926-                    }
927-                    // If a PCKG_TX error was returned, there must have been an invalid transaction.
928-                    NONFATAL_UNREACHABLE();
929+                    // Package-wide error we want to return, but we also want to return individual responses
930+                    package_msg = package_result.m_state.GetRejectReason();

glozow commented at 3:12 pm on November 29, 2023:

nit: can also CHECK_NONFATAL(package_result.m_tx_results.size() == txns.size()); here

instagibbs commented at 4:32 pm on November 29, 2023:

taken

instagibbs commented at 5:57 pm on November 29, 2023:

actually this is incorrect; PCKG_POLICY is grouped here, which means it’s size of txns or 0. Updated the check

in test/functional/rpc_packages.py:355 in 24c345f89e outdated

350+        hex_partial_acceptance = [txs[0]["hex"], bad_child.serialize().hex()]
351+        res = node.submitpackage(hex_partial_acceptance)
352+        assert_equal(res["package_msg"], "transaction failed")
353+        first_wtxid = txs[0]["tx"].getwtxid()
354+        assert "error" not in res["tx-results"][first_wtxid]
355+        sec_wtxid = next(wtxid for wtxid in res["tx-results"] if wtxid != first_wtxid)

glozow commented at 3:18 pm on November 29, 2023:

can’t you just do sec_wtxid = bad_child.getwtxid()?

instagibbs commented at 4:32 pm on November 29, 2023:

taken

in src/rpc/mempool.cpp:952 in 4fb3340a1a outdated

964+                if (it == package_result.m_tx_results.end()) {
965+                    // No results, report error and continue
966+                    result_inner.pushKV("error", "unevaluated");
967+                    continue;
968+                }
969+                CHECK_NONFATAL(it != package_result.m_tx_results.end());

glozow commented at 3:21 pm on November 29, 2023:

This check is useless? It exits if untrue right before

instagibbs commented at 4:32 pm on November 29, 2023:

removed

glozow commented at 3:24 pm on November 29, 2023: member

4fb3340a1ac678165e6821645e6aa1e06f34921a interface LGTM, some small code errors

instagibbs force-pushed on Nov 29, 2023

instagibbs commented at 4:32 pm on November 29, 2023: member

would be nice to fix, maybe in a followup

took the liberty of doing now @glozow

glozow commented at 4:38 pm on November 29, 2023: member

ACK 24953124a6ca70322c56f40ac090af174a3f4553

DrahtBot requested review from darosior on Nov 29, 2023

RPC submitpackage: change return format to allow partial errors

Behavior prior to this commit allows some transactions to
enter into the local mempool but not be reported to the user
when encountering a PackageValidationResult::PCKG_TX result.

This is further compounded with the fact that any transactions
submitted to the mempool during this call would also not be
relayed to peers, resulting in unexpected behavior.

Fix this by, if encountering a package error, reporting all
wtxids, along with a new error field, and broadcasting every
transaction that was found in the mempool after submission.

Note that this also changes fees and vsize to optional,
which should also remove an issue with other-wtxid cases.

b67db52c39

doc: submitpackage vsize results are sigops-adjusted e67a345162

test_submitpackage: only make a chain of 3 txns f23ba24aa0

instagibbs force-pushed on Nov 29, 2023

DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Nov 29, 2023

instagibbs commented at 5:57 pm on November 29, 2023: member

fixed CI fuzz rpc corpus issue with relaxed check

DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Nov 29, 2023

instagibbs commented at 2:30 pm on November 30, 2023: member

ping @Sjors @darosior @glozow should be ready for re-acks

glozow commented at 2:13 pm on December 1, 2023: member

utACK f23ba24aa079d68697d475789cd21bd7b5075550, thanks for taking the suggestions

Sjors commented at 3:12 pm on December 1, 2023: member

Light re-utACK f23ba24aa079d68697d475789cd21bd7b5075550

DrahtBot removed review request from Sjors on Dec 1, 2023

achow101 commented at 5:09 pm on December 1, 2023: member

ACK f23ba24aa079d68697d475789cd21bd7b5075550

achow101 merged this on Dec 1, 2023

achow101 closed this on Dec 1, 2023

luke-jr referenced this in commit cf4a07a747 on Apr 24, 2024

luke-jr referenced this in commit 30e3f5d1a1 on Apr 24, 2024

luke-jr referenced this in commit e6227d429b on Apr 24, 2024

Fabcien referenced this in commit f3ea6de567 on Jul 12, 2024

roqqit referenced this in commit 4b6d9dc6b5 on Aug 1, 2024

bitcoin locked this on Nov 30, 2024

bugfix, Change up submitpackage results to return results for all transactions #28848

Code Coverage

Reviews

Conflicts