Assert call when block is disconnected
#32153
It was highlighted in a PR discussion previously that the recently moved Assert macro call inside the block disconnected loop had been redundant for quite a while because of the presence of the assert macro call at the start of the function. Therefore, it is removed now.
refs #https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31757#discussion_r1995416821
It was highlighted in a PR discussion previously that the recently
moved `Assert` macro call inside the block disconnected loop had
been redundant for quite a while because of the presence of the
`assert` macro call at the start of the function. Therefore, it
is removed now.
refs #https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31757#discussion_r1995416821
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/32153.
See the guideline for information on the review process.
| Type | Reviewers |
|---|---|
| ACK | l0rinc, fjahr, hodlinator, Prabhat1308 |
| Concept ACK | pablomartin4btc |
If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.
The initial assert(block.data) at the function start already establishes that block.data is non-null + the loop already dereferences it
crACK ae6b6ea296a228f342c3c635dc9e14c101e9534d
# in the commit message at the beginning of
refs #https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31757#discussion_r1995416821
since it is a link and not a PR/Issue number.
Code Review ACK ae6b6ea296a228f342c3c635dc9e14c101e9534d
If something were so cheeky as to modify the incoming const interfaces::BlockInfo& block::data while we are using it, the approach on master would be broken too.
Code Review ACK ae6b6ea
The check to make sure block.data is non-null inside the loop is redundant. The check is already made at the start and the check inside the loop can be removed safely.