LogPrintf has many issues:
- It does not mention the log severity (info).
- It is a deprecated alias for
LogInfo, according to the dev notes. - It wastes review cycles, because reviewers sometimes point out that it is deprecated.
scripted-diff: Use LogInfo over LogPrintf [WIP, NOMERGE, DRAFT] #29641
pull maflcko wants to merge 2 commits into bitcoin:master from maflcko:2403-log- changing 59 files +341 −347-
maflcko commented at 8:21 pm on March 12, 2024: member
-
DrahtBot commented at 8:21 pm on March 12, 2024: contributor
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
Code Coverage & Benchmarks
For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/29641.
Reviews
See the guideline for information on the review process.
Type Reviewers Concept ACK TheCharlatan, l0rinc Stale ACK kevkevinpal 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:
- #32818 (Add read-only mode to sqlite db and use in
bitcoin-walletby willcl-ark) - #32748 (fees: prevent redundant estimates flushes by ismaelsadeeq)
- #32730 (p2p: avoid traversing blocks (twice) during IBD by furszy)
- #32631 (refactor: Convert GenTxid to
std::variantby marcofleon) - #32604 (log: Mitigate disk filling attacks by rate limiting LogPrintf, LogInfo, LogWarning, LogError by Crypt-iQ)
- #32394 (net: make m_nodes_mutex non-recursive by vasild)
- #32326 (net: improve the interface around FindNode() and avoid a recursive mutex lock by vasild)
- #32317 (kernel: Separate UTXO set access from validation functions by TheCharlatan)
- #32189 (refactor: Txid type safety (parent PR) by marcofleon)
- #32061 (Replace libevent with our own HTTP and socket-handling implementation by pinheadmz)
- #32015 (net: replace manual reference counting of CNode with shared_ptr by vasild)
- #31860 (init: Take lock on blocks directory in BlockManager ctor by TheCharlatan)
- #31644 (leveldb: show non-default options during init by l0rinc)
- #31423 (wallet: migration, avoid creating spendable wallet from a watch-only legacy wallet by furszy)
- #31144 ([IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation by l0rinc)
- #30988 (Split CConnman by vasild)
- #30214 (refactor: Improve assumeutxo state representation by ryanofsky)
- #29640 (Fix tiebreak when loading blocks from disk (and add tests for comparing chain ties) by sr-gi)
- #29307 (util: explicitly close all AutoFiles that have been written by vasild)
- #29256 (log, refactor: Allow log macros to accept context arguments by ryanofsky)
- #28792 (Embed default ASMap as binary dump header file by fjahr)
- #28584 (Fuzz: extend CConnman tests by vasild)
- #26966 (index: initial sync speedup, parallelize process by furszy)
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.
- #32818 (Add read-only mode to sqlite db and use in
-
DrahtBot added the label Refactoring on Mar 12, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Mar 12, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Mar 12, 2024
-
kevkevinpal commented at 1:55 am on March 13, 2024: contributorconcept ACK fae5751
-
kevkevinpal commented at 2:19 am on March 13, 2024: contributor
I noticed that there are helper functions such as the following using the
LogPrintfnaming schemeWalletLogPrintfinsrc/wallet/wallet.hLogPrintfCategoryWithThreadNames, LogPrintfCategory, LogPrintfCategoryWithoutThreadNames, LogPrintfWithoutThreadNames, LogPrintfWithThreadNamesin./src/bench/logging.cpp
Using this grep
grep -nri "\<LogPrintLevel\>" ./src --binary-files=without-matchI also noticed that we are usingLogPrintLevelwhen we could be usingLogInfo,LogWarning,LogError,LogDebugandLogTracethese might want to be addressed in a separate PR though
-
DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Mar 13, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Mar 13, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Mar 13, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Mar 13, 2024
-
ryanofsky commented at 2:14 pm on March 13, 2024: contributor
Concept -0. Not a strong opinion, but I think just mechanically replacing s/LogPrint/LogDebug/ and s/LogPrintf/LogInfo/ everywhere would not provide a major benefit, and while it may be true that “this will have to be done at some point” I think the point where it’d be nicest to do this would be after #29256 when we are able to define log sources to make
LogDebugcalls less verbose, and add missing category information toLogInfocalls.I wouldn’t object to this PR if other reviewers think it’s a worthwhile improvement and are ok with the long list of conflicts. I just think there are other improvements we should make to log prints besides this one, and it would be better to change each individual log print once instead of changing it multiple times.
-
maflcko commented at 2:17 pm on March 13, 2024: memberOk, makes sense. I’ll put it in draft for now, to allow for more time, if people want to change log messages further.
-
maflcko marked this as a draft on Mar 13, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Mar 14, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Mar 14, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Mar 14, 2024
-
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Mar 20, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Mar 21, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Mar 21, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Mar 22, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Mar 24, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Mar 24, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Mar 25, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Mar 25, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Mar 25, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Mar 28, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Mar 28, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Mar 28, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Apr 24, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Apr 26, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Apr 26, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Apr 30, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on May 1, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on May 1, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on May 3, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on May 3, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on May 3, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on May 13, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on May 20, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on May 20, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label CI failed on May 22, 2024
-
DrahtBot commented at 6:50 am on May 22, 2024: contributor
🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. Make sure to run all tests locally, according to the documentation.
Possibly this is due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest commit of the target branch.
Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.
-
maflcko force-pushed on May 22, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on May 22, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on May 23, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on May 28, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on May 28, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on May 29, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on May 29, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on May 29, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Jun 3, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Jun 3, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Jun 3, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Jun 7, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Jun 10, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Jun 10, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Jun 10, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Jun 10, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Jun 11, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Jun 12, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Jun 12, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Jun 14, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Jun 17, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Jun 17, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Jun 17, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Jun 18, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Jun 18, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Jun 20, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Jun 22, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Jun 22, 2024
-
TheCharlatan commented at 8:31 pm on June 25, 2024: contributorConcept ACK
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Jun 26, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Jun 26, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Jun 26, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Jun 27, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Jun 28, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Jun 28, 2024
-
jonatack commented at 7:18 pm on June 28, 2024: member
I suggest #29256 (comment) instead.
It may also make sense to finish consensus and work on the simplest possible consistent user-facing API and developer API before doing a mass migration.
-
maflcko commented at 7:11 am on July 1, 2024: member
I suggest #29256 (comment) instead.
It may also make sense to finish consensus and work on the simplest possible consistent user-facing API and developer API before doing a mass migration.
I don’t think the changes here conceptually conflict with any open pull request. There are discussions around the naming and functionality around
LogWarningandLogError, but I don’t think they are changed or touched in this pull request?However, the changes here conflict with quite a few open pull requests because the same lines (or adjacent lines) are touched, which is why this is marked as “draft” (not ready for merge).
Personally, I don’t think this change is high priority and it can wait. While I like the new macro names and functionality (and all reviewers who approved the pull request introducing them, seemed to be liking them as well?), due to the number of conflicts and the low priority, this will be probably be sitting for a while.
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Jul 1, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Jul 1, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Jul 1, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Jul 1, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Jul 2, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Jul 3, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Jul 3, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Jul 3, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Jul 4, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Jul 4, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Jul 4, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Jul 8, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Jul 8, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Jul 11, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Jul 11, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Jul 11, 2024
-
DrahtBot commented at 6:35 pm on July 11, 2024: contributor
🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. Debug: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/runs/27330763084
Make sure to run all tests locally, according to the documentation.
The failure may happen due to a number of reasons, for example:
-
Possibly due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest commit of the target branch.
-
A sanitizer issue, which can only be found by compiling with the sanitizer and running the affected test.
-
An intermittent issue.
Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.
-
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Jul 16, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Jul 16, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Jul 16, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Jul 16, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Jul 25, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Jul 25, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Jul 25, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Jul 31, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Aug 2, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Aug 2, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Aug 2, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Aug 5, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Aug 5, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Aug 5, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Aug 5, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Aug 5, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Aug 5, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Aug 7, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Aug 7, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Aug 7, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Aug 8, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Aug 8, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Aug 11, 2024
-
Theschorpioen approved
-
Theschorpioen approved
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Aug 27, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Aug 29, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Aug 29, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Aug 29, 2024
-
maflcko renamed this:
scripted-diff: Use LogInfo/LogDebug over LogPrintf/LogPrint
scripted-diff: Use LogInfo over LogPrintf
on Sep 2, 2024 -
maflcko force-pushed on Sep 2, 2024
-
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Sep 4, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Sep 5, 2024
-
DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Sep 5, 2024
-
maflcko force-pushed on Sep 6, 2024
-
in src/validation.cpp:194 in a4c49b4b5d outdated
182@@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ std::optional<std::vector<int>> CalculatePrevHeights( 183 const CTxIn& txin = tx.vin[i]; 184 Coin coin; 185 if (!coins.GetCoin(txin.prevout, coin)) { 186- LogPrintf("ERROR: %s: Missing input %d in transaction \'%s\'\n", __func__, i, tx.GetHash().GetHex()); 187+ LogInfo("ERROR: %s: Missing input %d in transaction \'%s\'\n", __func__, i, tx.GetHash().GetHex());
l0rinc commented at 11:41 am on September 9, 2024:Based on the message and
LogError(fmt, params...)should be used in place ofLogInfofor severe problems that require the node (or a subsystem) to shut down entirely (e.g., insufficient storage space).
and the discussion in #30849 (review), this looks like a
LogErrorinstead (will throw in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L895-L898 ifnulloptis returned).Edit: based on the comments in the above thread this may be a LogWarn instead:
LogWarning(fmt, params...)should be used in place ofLogInfofor severe problems that the node admin should address, but are not severe enough to warrant shutting down the node (e.g., system time appears to be wrong, unknown soft fork appears to have activated).
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Sep 9, 2024maflcko force-pushed on Sep 10, 2024DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Sep 10, 2024DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Sep 10, 2024maflcko force-pushed on Sep 10, 2024DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Sep 10, 2024DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Sep 11, 2024DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Sep 11, 2024maflcko force-pushed on Sep 12, 2024DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Sep 12, 2024DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Sep 13, 2024DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Sep 17, 2024maflcko force-pushed on Sep 18, 2024DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Sep 18, 2024in contrib/devtools/bitcoin-tidy/logprintf.h:12 in fcd132694b outdated
8@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ 9 10 namespace bitcoin { 11 12-// Warn about any use of LogPrintf that does not end with a newline. 13+// Warn about any use of LogInfo that does not end with a newline.
l0rinc commented at 12:19 pm on September 18, 2024:We should likely rename the file and class as well to matchin contrib/devtools/bitcoin-tidy/example_logprintf.cpp:93 in fcd132694b outdated
92+ LogInfo("hello world!..."); 93 } 94 void bad_func4_ignored() 95 { 96- LogPrintf("hello world!"); // NOLINT(bitcoin-unterminated-logprintf) 97+ LogInfo("hello world!"); // NOLINT(bitcoin-unterminated-logprintf)
l0rinc commented at 12:20 pm on September 18, 2024:does the custom lint name need an update now?in contrib/devtools/bitcoin-tidy/example_logprintf.cpp:23 in fcd132694b outdated
19@@ -20,11 +20,11 @@ static inline void LogPrintf_(const std::string& logging_function, const std::st 20 } 21 22 #define LogPrintLevel_(category, level, ...) LogPrintf_(__func__, __FILE__, __LINE__, category, level, __VA_ARGS__) 23-#define LogPrintf(...) LogPrintLevel_(LogFlags::NONE, Level::None, __VA_ARGS__) 24+#define LogInfo(...) LogPrintLevel_(LogFlags::NONE, Level::None, __VA_ARGS__)
l0rinc commented at 12:21 pm on September 18, 2024:Since the file containsLogInfoexamples now, we should rename the file as well.in contrib/devtools/bitcoin-tidy/example_logprintf.cpp:27 in fcd132694b outdated
24+#define LogInfo(...) LogPrintLevel_(LogFlags::NONE, Level::None, __VA_ARGS__) 25 26 #define LogDebug(category, ...) \ 27 do { \ 28- LogPrintf(__VA_ARGS__); \ 29+ LogInfo(__VA_ARGS__); \
l0rinc commented at 12:22 pm on September 18, 2024:this line seems weird now, definingdebugasInfol0rinc changes_requestedl0rinc commented at 12:24 pm on September 18, 2024: contributorConcept ACKmaflcko commented at 12:46 pm on September 18, 2024: member(This draft pull request isn’t ready for review. The previous 5 comments are on stuff that will be deleted anyway.)
For now, please focus review on non-draft pull requests. There should be plenty right now.
maflcko renamed this:
scripted-diff: Use LogInfo over LogPrintf
scripted-diff: Use LogInfo over LogPrintf [WIP, NOMERGE, DRAFT]
on Sep 18, 2024DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Sep 19, 2024maflcko force-pushed on Sep 19, 2024DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Sep 19, 2024maflcko force-pushed on Sep 19, 2024maflcko force-pushed on Sep 24, 2024maflcko force-pushed on Sep 24, 2024maflcko force-pushed on Sep 26, 2024DrahtBot commented at 3:27 pm on September 30, 2024: contributor🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. Debug: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/runs/30702762713
Try to run the tests locally, according to the documentation. However, a CI failure may still happen due to a number of reasons, for example:
-
Possibly due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest commit of the target branch.
-
A sanitizer issue, which can only be found by compiling with the sanitizer and running the affected test.
-
An intermittent issue.
Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.
DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Sep 30, 2024DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Sep 30, 2024DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Sep 30, 2024maflcko force-pushed on Oct 1, 2024DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Oct 1, 2024DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Oct 2, 2024maflcko force-pushed on Oct 9, 2024DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Oct 9, 2024DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Oct 20, 2024maflcko force-pushed on Oct 23, 2024DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Oct 23, 2024maflcko force-pushed on Oct 24, 2024maflcko force-pushed on Oct 24, 2024DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Oct 28, 2024maflcko force-pushed on Oct 28, 2024DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Oct 28, 2024DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Oct 28, 2024maflcko force-pushed on Oct 29, 2024DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Oct 29, 2024DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Nov 1, 2024DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Nov 1, 2024DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Nov 1, 2024DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Nov 1, 2024maflcko force-pushed on Nov 4, 2024DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Nov 4, 2024DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Nov 4, 2024maflcko force-pushed on Nov 21, 2024maflcko force-pushed on Nov 21, 2024in .github/workflows/ci.yml:112 in 98389c6668 outdated
108@@ -109,7 +109,8 @@ jobs: 109 run: | 110 # A workaround for "The `brew link` step did not complete successfully" error. 111 brew install --quiet python@3 || brew link --overwrite python@3 112- brew install --quiet coreutils ninja pkg-config gnu-getopt ccache boost libevent zeromq qt@5 qrencode 113+ brew unlink pkg-config 114+ brew install --quiet coreutils ninja gnu-getopt ccache boost libevent zeromq qt@5 qrencode
fanquake commented at 11:02 am on November 21, 2024:forgot to add pkgconf?maflcko force-pushed on Nov 21, 2024maflcko force-pushed on Nov 21, 2024maflcko added the label DrahtBot Guix build requested on Nov 27, 2024DrahtBot commented at 9:59 am on November 30, 2024: contributorGuix builds (on x86_64) [untrusted test-only build, possibly unsafe, not for production use]
DrahtBot removed the label DrahtBot Guix build requested on Nov 30, 2024DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Dec 3, 2024maflcko force-pushed on Dec 4, 2024DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Dec 4, 2024DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Dec 5, 2024maflcko force-pushed on Dec 5, 2024DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Dec 5, 2024DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Dec 6, 2024maflcko force-pushed on Dec 6, 2024DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Dec 6, 2024maflcko added the label DrahtBot Guix build requested on Dec 7, 2024DrahtBot commented at 2:05 am on December 10, 2024: contributorGuix builds (on x86_64) [untrusted test-only build, possibly unsafe, not for production use]
DrahtBot removed the label DrahtBot Guix build requested on Dec 10, 2024DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Dec 27, 2024maflcko force-pushed on Jan 2, 2025DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Jan 2, 2025maflcko force-pushed on Jan 14, 2025DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Jan 17, 2025maflcko force-pushed on Jan 17, 2025DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Jan 17, 2025DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Jan 22, 2025maflcko force-pushed on Jan 24, 2025DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Jan 24, 2025DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Feb 5, 2025DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Feb 5, 2025DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Feb 14, 2025maflcko force-pushed on Feb 17, 2025DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Feb 17, 2025DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Feb 19, 2025maflcko force-pushed on Feb 19, 2025DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Feb 19, 2025DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Feb 19, 2025maflcko force-pushed on Feb 20, 2025DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Feb 20, 2025DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Mar 14, 2025maflcko force-pushed on Mar 14, 2025DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Mar 14, 2025maflcko force-pushed on Mar 28, 2025DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Apr 1, 2025maflcko force-pushed on Apr 1, 2025DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Apr 1, 2025maflcko force-pushed on Apr 4, 2025maflcko force-pushed on Apr 7, 2025DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Apr 11, 2025DrahtBot commented at 1:35 pm on April 11, 2025: contributor🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. Debug: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/runs/40077970072
Try to run the tests locally, according to the documentation. However, a CI failure may still happen due to a number of reasons, for example:
-
Possibly due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest commit of the target branch.
-
A sanitizer issue, which can only be found by compiling with the sanitizer and running the affected test.
-
An intermittent issue.
Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.
maflcko force-pushed on Apr 11, 2025DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Apr 11, 2025maflcko added the label DrahtBot Guix build requested on Apr 15, 2025DrahtBot commented at 12:06 pm on April 16, 2025: contributorGuix builds (on x86_64) [untrusted test-only build, possibly unsafe, not for production use]
File commit cdc32994feadf3f15df3cfac5baae36b4b011462(master) commit 2e5836b57203006270fa40bdb975e89de9ab94bc(pull/$29641/merge) *-arm-linux-gnueabihf-debug.tar.gz 03657941dd88df39...ddbb7b8ec70bcff8...*-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz 38e919eeeb4cf11f...9f686ad3168769f3...*-x86_64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz 25c5b9ff38beb61e...8c58fa69424ad61f...*-arm64-apple-darwin-unsigned.zip c8bff07d08664e09...da401efb70000a03...*-x86_64-apple-darwin-unsigned.tar.gz 7f68411d59e4da91...8101df692fe6c29d...*-powerpc64-linux-gnu.tar.gz 9963c6483b222801...6b183ed36014e527...*-arm64-apple-darwin-codesigning.tar.gz 553ab37d14d2371e...8091ed9153f9a094...*-riscv64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz 759af97886144bd7...035bbdb8bf38e766...*-riscv64-linux-gnu.tar.gz 0f2bd80a8c005f26...17ec67af43b37c68...*-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz 5aea0cec71322bcc...24ead07f5563df6d...*-arm64-apple-darwin-unsigned.tar.gz 80bfbae3aa772f74...574b9576f6f4fbf8...guix_build.log 92bb3587787aeaeb...fff1c68567b9b161...guix_build.log.diff 3914f7c75e076193...*-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz 362ced3e339f1812...542e9bfa188c82ec...*-x86_64-apple-darwin-unsigned.zip 53e1009e277faffc...ab59c62a900a0777...SHA256SUMS.part d82163924bc84482...d3d6a6b229301d85...*-x86_64-apple-darwin-codesigning.tar.gz ea0aa1b091751f39...031dbd717c0283d9...*-powerpc64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz b579128b84939d87...2800088216047b98...*-arm-linux-gnueabihf.tar.gz 6a284e891567742b...3c28fadb23963d9e...*.tar.gz 0964f14427b3bc12...4e5477d443991af8...DrahtBot removed the label DrahtBot Guix build requested on Apr 16, 2025maflcko added the label DrahtBot Guix build requested on Apr 16, 2025DrahtBot commented at 12:25 pm on April 16, 2025: contributorGuix builds (on x86_64) [untrusted test-only build, possibly unsafe, not for production use]
File commit cdc32994feadf3f15df3cfac5baae36b4b011462(master) commit 2e5836b57203006270fa40bdb975e89de9ab94bc(pull/29641/merge) *-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz 362ced3e339f1812...542e9bfa188c82ec...*-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz 5aea0cec71322bcc...24ead07f5563df6d...*-arm-linux-gnueabihf-debug.tar.gz 03657941dd88df39...ddbb7b8ec70bcff8...*-arm-linux-gnueabihf.tar.gz 6a284e891567742b...3c28fadb23963d9e...*-arm64-apple-darwin-codesigning.tar.gz 553ab37d14d2371e...8091ed9153f9a094...*-arm64-apple-darwin-unsigned.tar.gz 80bfbae3aa772f74...574b9576f6f4fbf8...*-arm64-apple-darwin-unsigned.zip c8bff07d08664e09...da401efb70000a03...*-powerpc64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz b579128b84939d87...2800088216047b98...*-powerpc64-linux-gnu.tar.gz 9963c6483b222801...6b183ed36014e527...*-riscv64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz 759af97886144bd7...035bbdb8bf38e766...*-riscv64-linux-gnu.tar.gz 0f2bd80a8c005f26...17ec67af43b37c68...*-x86_64-apple-darwin-codesigning.tar.gz ea0aa1b091751f39...031dbd717c0283d9...*-x86_64-apple-darwin-unsigned.tar.gz 7f68411d59e4da91...8101df692fe6c29d...*-x86_64-apple-darwin-unsigned.zip 53e1009e277faffc...ab59c62a900a0777...*-x86_64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz 25c5b9ff38beb61e...8c58fa69424ad61f...*-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz 38e919eeeb4cf11f...9f686ad3168769f3...*.tar.gz 0964f14427b3bc12...4e5477d443991af8...SHA256SUMS.part d82163924bc84482...d3d6a6b229301d85...guix_build.log 92bb3587787aeaeb...fff1c68567b9b161...guix_build.log.diff 3914f7c75e076193...DrahtBot removed the label DrahtBot Guix build requested on Apr 16, 2025DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Apr 16, 2025maflcko force-pushed on Apr 17, 2025DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Apr 17, 2025DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Apr 28, 2025DrahtBot commented at 6:22 am on April 28, 2025: contributor🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. Debug: previous releases, depends DEBUG https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/runs/41251947428 LLM reason (✨ experimental): The CI failure is caused by a compilation error in src/init.cpp due to a syntax mistake with GetPi and incomplete line, leading to a broken function.
Try to run the tests locally, according to the documentation. However, a CI failure may still happen due to a number of reasons, for example:
-
Possibly due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest commit of the target branch.
-
A sanitizer issue, which can only be found by compiling with the sanitizer and running the affected test.
-
An intermittent issue.
Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Apr 29, 2025maflcko force-pushed on Apr 30, 2025DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Apr 30, 2025DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Apr 30, 2025maflcko force-pushed on Apr 30, 2025maflcko force-pushed on May 5, 2025DrahtBot added the label CI failed on May 5, 2025DrahtBot commented at 1:23 pm on May 5, 2025: contributor🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. Task
ARM, unit tests, no functional tests: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/runs/41651827597 LLM reason (✨ experimental): The CI failure is due to a build error: a member function was incorrectly named.Try to run the tests locally, according to the documentation. However, a CI failure may still happen due to a number of reasons, for example:
-
Possibly due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest commit of the target branch.
-
A sanitizer issue, which can only be found by compiling with the sanitizer and running the affected test.
-
An intermittent issue.
Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on May 7, 2025maflcko force-pushed on May 9, 2025DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on May 9, 2025DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on May 9, 2025DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on May 19, 2025maflcko force-pushed on May 21, 2025DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on May 21, 2025maflcko force-pushed on Jun 13, 2025DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Jun 16, 2025DrahtBot commented at 12:19 pm on June 16, 2025: contributor🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. Task
lint: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/runs/44024372509 LLM reason (✨ experimental): The CI failure is due to errors encountered during the linting process.Try to run the tests locally, according to the documentation. However, a CI failure may still happen due to a number of reasons, for example:
-
Possibly due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest commit of the target branch.
-
A sanitizer issue, which can only be found by compiling with the sanitizer and running the affected test.
-
An intermittent issue.
Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Jun 20, 2025e93154ae82scripted-diff: LogPrintf -> LogInfo
-BEGIN VERIFY SCRIPT- sed -i 's/\<LogPrintf\>/LogInfo/g' $( git grep -l '\<LogPrintf\>' -- ./contrib/ ./src/ ./test/ ':(exclude)src/logging.h' ) -END VERIFY SCRIPT-
refactor: Remove unused LogPrintf 2bcfafe71fmaflcko force-pushed on Jun 21, 2025DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Jun 21, 2025DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Jun 21, 2025DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Jul 2, 2025DrahtBot commented at 8:55 pm on July 2, 2025: contributor🐙 This pull request conflicts with the target branch and needs rebase.
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: 2025-07-05 18:13 UTC
This site is hosted by @0xB10C
More mirrored repositories can be found on mirror.b10c.me
