init: Changing the rpcbind argument being ignored to a pop up warning #33813

1. 
   Ataraxia009 commented at 6:02 am on November 7, 2025: none

   When we ignore a users explicit request to an rpcbind, i think it warrants for a warning instead of a debug log.
2. 
   DrahtBot commented at 6:02 am on November 7, 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/33813.

   Reviews

   See the guideline for information on the review process. A summary of reviews will appear here.

   Conflicts

   Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

   • #33960 (log: Use more severe log level (warn/err) where appropriate by maflcko)
   • #29641 (scripted-diff: Use LogInfo over LogPrintf [WIP, NOMERGE, DRAFT] by maflcko)

   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.

3. 
   fanquake commented at 11:19 am on November 7, 2025: member

   https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/19159736145/job/54788142845?pr=33813#step:5:171:

   0 Duplicate include(s) in src/httpserver.cpp:
   1#include <node/interface_ui.h>
   

   Can you also shorten the length of the commit title, and add a proper prefix:.

4. DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Nov 7, 2025
5. 
   DrahtBot commented at 11:52 am on November 7, 2025: contributor

   🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. Task lint: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/19159736145/job/54788142845 LLM reason (✨ experimental): Lint failures caused the CI to fail (duplicate include in src/httpserver.cpp and all_python_linters errors).

   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.

6. luke-jr referenced this in commit 7498da0c2a on Nov 9, 2025
7. in src/httpserver.cpp:375 in 0cca5b772a outdated

   375@@ -375,7 +376,7 @@ static bool HTTPBindAddresses(struct evhttp* http)
   376             LogPrintf("WARNING: option -rpcallowip was specified without -rpcbind; this doesn't usually make sense\n");
   

   ---

   ---

   

   laanwj commented at 8:54 am on November 11, 2025:

   Do we want to change this one to a warning as well? It even say “WARNING”.

   ---

   

   Ataraxia009 commented at 6:26 am on November 14, 2025:

   Not necessary since its a weird case imo? Why would you ever hit it?

   ---

   

   maflcko commented at 4:14 pm on November 19, 2025:

   Why would you ever hit it?

   the warning can be hit when -rpcallowip was specified without -rpcbind?

   ---

   

   Ataraxia009 commented at 6:12 pm on November 24, 2025:

   right but is there an actual case where people do that? The only reason you would need to -rpcallowip is if you are exposing the rpc server with -rpcbind?
8. Ataraxia009 renamed this:
   Changing the rpcbind argument being ignored to a pop up warning, inst…
   init: Changing the rpcbind argument being ignored to a pop up warning, inst…
   on Nov 14, 2025
9. Ataraxia009 renamed this:
   init: Changing the rpcbind argument being ignored to a pop up warning, inst…
   init: Changing the rpcbind argument being ignored to a pop up warning
   on Nov 14, 2025
10. Changing the rpcbind argument being ignored to a pop up warning, instead of a debug log 335a05c69e
11. Ataraxia009 force-pushed on Nov 14, 2025
12. DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Nov 17, 2025
13. DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Dec 2, 2025
14. 
    DrahtBot commented at 2:49 pm on December 2, 2025: contributor

    🐙 This pull request conflicts with the target branch and needs rebase.

Contributors
Ataraxia009 DrahtBot fanquake laanwj maflcko

Labels
Needs rebase