RPC: removeprunedfunds should take an array of txids #32501

pull BrandonOdiwuor wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from BrandonOdiwuor:removeprunedfunds-array changing 3 files +30 −13

BrandonOdiwuor commented at 5:35 PM on May 14, 2025: contributor

Fixes #29466

Update removeprunedfunds RPC to take an array of strings of txids instead of a single txid string to allow batch removal of transactions
RPC: removeprunedfunds should take an array of txids f02276b03e
DrahtBot commented at 5:35 PM on May 14, 2025: 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/32501.



Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

Type Reviewers

Concept NACK luke-jr

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:
- #32514 (scripted-diff: Remove unused leading newline in RPC docs by maflcko)
- #32238 (qt, wallet: Convert uint256 to Txid by marcofleon)
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.
DrahtBot added the label RPC/REST/ZMQ on May 14, 2025
DrahtBot added the label CI failed on May 14, 2025
stickies-v commented at 8:54 PM on May 14, 2025: contributor

This seems very similar to the approach taken in #29468. There were a couple of unaddressed review comments that seem to apply here too, so I think it would be good to list and address them. Furthermore, it might be appropriate to credit the original author?
ismaelsadeeq commented at 9:09 PM on May 14, 2025: member

@BrandonOdiwuor I don't think it's productive to open a draft PR without first addressing the comments. If you'd like to continue working on this but are facing blockers, it would be better to communicate your approach and explain where you're stuck in the tracking issue.

I suggest closing this for now and reopening it once the concerns raised about the previous approach have been addressed.
DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on May 16, 2025
DrahtBot commented at 9:21 AM on May 16, 2025: contributor



🐙 This pull request conflicts with the target branch and needs rebase.
luke-jr commented at 11:48 AM on May 20, 2025: member

Concept NACK, but open to being convinced otherwise. Not seeing any benefit to this over batching. At a minimum, it should keep backward compatibility.
maflcko commented at 12:18 PM on May 20, 2025: member
Closing for now. I don't think there is any need in opening a pull request that is just a previously closed pull request with:
- the original author stripped,
- no reference to the previously closed pull,
- failing tests,
- no feedback addressed.
Contributions are welcome. Just make sure to run the tests before opening a pull request. Also, pre-existing review feedback would be good to address before opening a pull request.
maflcko closed this on May 20, 2025