Inspired by: 00c1dbd26ddb816e5541c5724397015a92a3d06b (#31419)
Unless there's a reason we don't want the same change here...?
Inspired by: 00c1dbd26ddb816e5541c5724397015a92a3d06b (#31419)
Unless there's a reason we don't want the same change here...?
Inspired by: 00c1dbd26ddb816e5541c5724397015a92a3d06b (#31419)
<!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
<!--006a51241073e994b41acfe9ec718e94-->
For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/31623.
<!--021abf342d371248e50ceaed478a90ca-->
See the guideline for information on the review process.
If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.
I did not test with #31418, but the change would be harmless in the worst case anyway.
review ACK f93f0c93961bbce413101c2a92300a7a29277506 🔶
<details><summary>Show signature</summary>
Signature:
untrusted comment: signature from minisign secret key on empty file; verify via: minisign -Vm "${path_to_any_empty_file}" -P RWTRmVTMeKV5noAMqVlsMugDDCyyTSbA3Re5AkUrhvLVln0tSaFWglOw -x "${path_to_this_whole_four_line_signature_blob}"
RUTRmVTMeKV5npGrKx1nqXCw5zeVHdtdYURB/KlyA/LMFgpNCs+SkW9a8N95d+U4AP1RJMi+krxU1A3Yux4bpwZNLvVBKy0wLgM=
trusted comment: review ACK f93f0c93961bbce413101c2a92300a7a29277506 🔶
hNaav1bocAYFgaN1U5D5+b3r088QmK9iFxhcykDq5QQ3YRpWaUqQm/JvwQAWUu5LbTrGv6orFTs5UD3kkR77Ag==
</details>
tested ACK f93f0c93961bbce413101c2a92300a7a29277506
I did check that the contrib/tracing/log_raw_p2p_msgs.py script still works for me, but did not test on Rawhide.
Thanks for picking this up.