doc: mempool: fix removeUnchecked incorrect comment #34375

1. 
   ismaelsadeeq commented at 8:16 pm on January 21, 2026: member

   CTxMemPool::removeUnchecked description comment is stale and incorrect; the behaviour being described no longer applies in the post-cluster world. This PR is a simple fix that attempts to correctly describe what is being done in removeUnchecked.
2. DrahtBot added the label Docs on Jan 21, 2026
3. 
   DrahtBot commented at 8:17 pm on January 21, 2026: 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/34375.

   Reviews

   See the guideline for information on the review process.

   Type	Reviewers
   ACK	sipa, instagibbs

   If your review is incorrectly listed, please copy-paste <!–meta-tag:bot-skip–> into the comment that the bot should ignore.

4. in src/txmempool.h:592 in 1a1abdcc0a

   595-     *  CTxMemPoolEntry's m_parents in order to walk ancestors of a
   596-     *  given transaction that is removed, so we can't remove intermediate
   597-     *  transactions in a chain before we've updated all the state for the
   598-     *  removal.
   599-     */
   600+    /* Erase this entry from mapTx; this erasure should trigger the removal of the entry Ref from txgraph.
   

   ---

   ---

   

   instagibbs commented at 9:28 pm on January 21, 2026:

   I’m not sure just naming more things it touches vs letting the user read what it touches is better.

   Is there something more high level we can add? (no helpful suggestions sorry :( )

   ---

   

   ismaelsadeeq commented at 11:21 am on January 22, 2026:

   I’m not sure just naming more things it touches vs letting the user read what it touches is better.

   You are right; I am also not a huge fan of these comments that describe what is obvious in code, as they can easily become stale, requiring updates (like this). But I don’t mind them either as long as they are correct. I couldn’t come up with anything better, and would like to see the status quo issue fixed; that’s why I pushed this.

   Is there something more high level we can add?

   The only implicit thing is the eviction from the txgraph

   no helpful suggestions sorry :( )

   Happy to update to.

   0/* Removal from the mempool also triggers removal of the entry Ref from txgraph*/
   

   Let me know what you think?

   ---

   

   instagibbs commented at 1:49 pm on January 22, 2026:

   definitely better

   ---

   

   ismaelsadeeq commented at 2:11 pm on January 22, 2026:

   Done.
5. ismaelsadeeq force-pushed on Jan 22, 2026
6. doc: mempool: fix `removeUnchecked` incorrect comment

   - CTxMemPool::removeUnchecked description comment is stale and incorrect
     after cluster mempool.
     This commit fixes the issue by deleting the stale comment and describing
     only the implicit behaviour triggered by the method.

   1137debb85
7. ismaelsadeeq force-pushed on Jan 22, 2026
8. DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Jan 22, 2026
9. 
   sipa commented at 2:21 pm on January 22, 2026: member

   ACK 1137debb85306063f1660bc15850979e7db88fb8
10. 
    instagibbs commented at 2:25 pm on January 22, 2026: member

    ACK 1137debb85306063f1660bc15850979e7db88fb8
11. fanquake merged this on Jan 22, 2026
12. fanquake closed this on Jan 22, 2026

    ---

13. ismaelsadeeq deleted the branch on Jan 22, 2026

Contributors
ismaelsadeeq DrahtBot instagibbs sipa

Labels
Docs CI failed