refactor: inline constant `f_obfuscate = false` parameter #34048

pull l0rinc wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from l0rinc:l0rinc/inline-constant-obfuscate-param changing 2 files +3 −4

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).
refactor: inline constant `f_obfuscate = false` parameter 1670fb14d0
DrahtBot added the label Refactoring on Dec 10, 2025
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.



Conflicts

No conflicts as of last run.
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
Ataraxia009 commented at 9:09 AM on December 11, 2025: none

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

if it's needed in the future, it's trivial to reintroduce it.
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
l0rinc commented at 10:23 PM on December 18, 2025: contributor

Closing for lack of interest, will keep it in the original PR only
l0rinc closed this on Dec 18, 2025
l0rinc deleted the branch on Jun 18, 2026

Contributors

Labels

Linked (view graph)

#33324 blocks: add `-reobfuscate-blocks` argument to enable (de)obfuscating existing blocks

refactor: inline constant `f_obfuscate = false` parameter #34048

Code Coverage & Benchmarks

Reviews

Conflicts