If your review is incorrectly listed, please copy-paste <code><!--meta-tag:bot-skip--></code> into the comment that the bot should ignore.
<!--5faf32d7da4f0f540f40219e4f7537a3-->
DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Dec 24, 2025
billymcbip renamed this: test: Add unit test for SCRIPT_ERR_NUMEQUALVERIFY test: Add unit tests for OP_NUMEQUALVERIFY and OP_CHECKMULTISIG (easy) on Dec 24, 2025
test: Add unit test for SCRIPT_ERR_NUMEQUALVERIFYb762538756
billymcbip force-pushed on Dec 24, 2025
rkrux approved
rkrux
commented at 9:56 AM on December 26, 2025:
contributor
DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Dec 26, 2025
billymcbip
commented at 9:58 AM on December 27, 2025:
contributor
@rkrux thanks for the ACK, but that line is dead code, see #33977. The OP_CHECKMULTISIG test case does not improve code coverage, but I think a "missing dummy" test case is good to have.
bensig
commented at 9:13 PM on December 31, 2025:
contributor
ACK8dd3db3
Built and ran script_tests on macOS - all pass. Both test cases work as expected.
billymcbip
commented at 7:40 PM on January 2, 2026:
contributor
Side note: I have another PR out for script_tests: #34099. Thought I'd mention it since it's within the same context (improving interpreter coverage).
fanquake renamed this: test: Add unit tests for OP_NUMEQUALVERIFY and OP_CHECKMULTISIG (easy) test: Add unit tests for OP_NUMEQUALVERIFY and OP_CHECKMULTISIG on Jan 6, 2026
darosior
commented at 8:51 PM on January 13, 2026:
member
All 132 tests pass. Also ran test_bitcoin --run_test=script_tests separately to confirm the new test case exercises the SCRIPT_ERR_NUMEQUALVERIFY error path at src/script/interpreter.cpp:997.
Nice little coverage improvement - straightforward and correct.
DrahtBot requested review from rkrux on Jan 14, 2026
DrahtBot requested review from darosior on Jan 14, 2026
darosior
commented at 3:00 PM on January 14, 2026:
member
To be clear, the test case for OP_CHECKMULTISIG that I wanted to add in 8dd3db3 did not improve code coverage.
How comes? I think you were correct in OP that the line that check for a missing dummy element is currently not covered.
darosior approved
darosior
commented at 3:02 PM on January 14, 2026:
member
ACKb7625387569af059adb359af4cff18dd7850f213
It's an improvement so i'm fine if it's merged but i think the other commit is still worth pursuing as per my comment above.
sedited approved
sedited
commented at 3:06 PM on January 14, 2026:
contributor
ACKb7625387569af059adb359af4cff18dd7850f213
fanquake merged this on Jan 14, 2026
fanquake closed this on Jan 14, 2026
billymcbip
commented at 5:23 PM on January 14, 2026:
contributor
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: 2026-05-02 03:12 UTC
This site is hosted by @0xB10C More mirrored repositories can be found on mirror.b10c.me