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.
l0rinc force-pushed
on Dec 17, 2025
l0rinc force-pushed
on Dec 17, 2025
l0rinc marked this as ready for review
on Dec 17, 2025
DrahtBot removed the label
CI failed
on Dec 18, 2025
Chand-ra
commented at 9:35 am on December 18, 2025:
none
I performed a quick grep '\.count()' and it looks like there are quite a few instances that seem eligible for this change but aren’t included here, is there some reason for doing so? For example, I found 1, 2, 3, 4 such instances in src/net.cpp.
janb84
commented at 9:51 am on December 18, 2025:
contributor
I performed a quick grep '\.count()' and it looks like there are quite a few instances that seem eligible for this change but aren’t included here, is there some reason for doing so? For example, I found 1, 2, 3, 4 such instances in src/net.cpp.
The change is not about removing .count() everywhere. But to change it in cases where the count() statement is used to count the number of occurrences to indicate if something is in the collection. The example you reference eg bool has_received{last_recv.count() != 0}; is a “correct” usage of count() (is it not empty)
maflcko
commented at 10:40 am on December 18, 2025:
member
Chand-ra
commented at 12:48 pm on December 18, 2025:
none
The change is not about removing .count() everywhere. But to change it in cases where the count() statement is used to count the number of occurrences to indicate if something is in the collection. The example you reference eg bool has_received{last_recv.count() != 0}; is a “correct” usage of count() (is it not empty)
Makes sense! I seem to have mistaken count() in std::chrono with the ones for container classes.
l0rinc
commented at 1:03 pm on December 18, 2025:
contributor
Thanks for checking @Chand-ra - your mentioned examples are not “contains” alternatives but “exists” alternatives for chrono::duration (which is orthogonal to this change and doesn’t seem to exist in C++20 anyway).
Looks like GitHub nuked all historic commits and historic CI runs here?
I did push a few versions while CI was running, maybe that was confusing - is there anything you need me to do here?
fanquake marked this as a draft
on Dec 18, 2025
fanquake
commented at 1:25 pm on December 18, 2025:
member
Moved to draft for now, given these refactors have broken our minimum version requirements (#34101). That should be resolved before doing anything else here.
l0rinc force-pushed
on Dec 18, 2025
l0rinc
commented at 2:52 pm on December 18, 2025:
contributor
Reverted the boost changes (already merged ones and new ones), clang-tidy should still pass.
fanquake marked this as ready for review
on Dec 18, 2025
marcofleon
commented at 4:06 pm on December 18, 2025:
contributor
Replace the last few instances of `.count() != 0` and `.count() == 0` and `.count()` patterns with the more expressive C++20 `.contains()` method:
* `std::set<std::string>` in `getblocktemplate` RPC;
* `std::map<std::string, ...>` in `transaction_tests`;
* other bare `std::unordered_set` and `std::map` count calls.
With no remaining violations, enable the `readability-container-contains`
clang-tidy check to prevent future regressions.
1e94e562f7
l0rinc force-pushed
on Dec 18, 2025
l0rinc
commented at 9:40 pm on December 18, 2025:
contributor
Rebased and split into two commits and updated commit message to reference Boost 1.78.0 instead.
hebasto approved
hebasto
commented at 9:50 pm on December 18, 2025:
member
ACK1e94e562f76e6152dffb2a2d07dc3429137098b5.
DrahtBot requested review from janb84
on Dec 18, 2025
DrahtBot requested review from marcofleon
on Dec 18, 2025
DrahtBot requested review from pablomartin4btc
on Dec 18, 2025
pablomartin4btc approved
pablomartin4btc
commented at 10:00 pm on December 18, 2025:
member
re-ACK1e94e562f76e6152dffb2a2d07dc3429137098b5
Boost fix/ revert split in a separate commit.
janb84
commented at 9:11 am on December 19, 2025:
contributor
ACK1e94e562f76e6152dffb2a2d07dc3429137098b5
changes since last ack:
reverted boost library contains calls
split out the revert in separate commit.
rkrux
commented at 9:41 am on December 19, 2025:
contributor
re-ACK1e94e562f76e6152dffb2a2d07dc3429137098b5
fanquake referenced this in commit
acba51101b
on Dec 19, 2025
This is a metadata mirror of the GitHub repository
bitcoin/bitcoin.
This site is not affiliated with GitHub.
Content is generated from a GitHub metadata backup.
generated: 2026-01-01 12:13 UTC
This site is hosted by @0xB10C More mirrored repositories can be found on mirror.b10c.me
