refactor: inline constant f_obfuscate = false parameter #34048

1. 
   l0rinc commented at 10:26 pm on December 10, 2025: contributor

   Split out of #33324 since it makes sense on its own.

   Currently the parameter is only called with a single constant parameter, it doesn’t make sense to needlessly obfuscate the constructor (pun intended).

2. refactor: inline constant `f_obfuscate = false` parameter 1670fb14d0
3. DrahtBot added the label Refactoring on Dec 10, 2025
4. 
   DrahtBot commented at 10:26 pm on December 10, 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/34048.

   Reviews

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

5. in src/index/base.h:68 in 1670fb14d0

   63@@ -64,8 +64,7 @@ class BaseIndex : public CValidationInterface
   64     class DB : public CDBWrapper
   65     {
   66     public:
   67-        DB(const fs::path& path, size_t n_cache_size,
   68-           bool f_memory = false, bool f_wipe = false, bool f_obfuscate = false);
   

   ---

   ---

   

   maflcko commented at 8:10 am on December 11, 2025:

   i presume this exists to allow indexes to obfuscate, if there is need to? E.g. when storing remote-user-provided data. E.g. an addrindex?

   I understand this isn’t needed right now, so no strong opinion.

   ---

   

   l0rinc commented at 12:49 pm on December 11, 2025:

   Yes, it’s an unused argument - it’s clearer to remove the fake single-instance-abstraction
6. 
   Ataraxia009 commented at 9:09 am on December 11, 2025: none

   Concept NAck, could be needed in the future, no point in hiding it
7. 
   l0rinc commented at 10:31 am on December 11, 2025: contributor

   if it’s needed in the future, it’s trivial to reintroduce it.
8. 
   Ataraxia009 commented at 5:52 am on December 12, 2025: none

   if it’s needed in the future, it’s trivial to reintroduce it.

   It seems like a strong enough option to leave as is still but ill defer to others i dont have a strong opinion

Contributors
l0rinc DrahtBot maflcko Ataraxia009

Labels
Refactoring