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

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