wallet rpc: fix stale argument metadata and help text #36264

MrHodlX commented at 3:15 PM on September 15, 2026: none

Small fixes to stale argument metadata and help text in the wallet RPCs, in three focused commits:

5fcbbf8 — listtransactions: the "Negative from" error references the skip argument by its old name
9aa8977 — listsinceblock: name the failing argument when target_confirmations < 1 instead of a bare "Invalid parameter"
f214b2c — sendmany: the help examples pass values in the ignored minconf position; describe what the example actually sets and pass null for the placeholder

Required test updates ride in each commit. (Two earlier commits touching deprecated arguments were dropped per maflcko's review: either that deprecated argument gets a proper removal cycle later, or it isn't worth touching.)

DrahtBot commented at 3:16 PM on September 15, 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/36264.

Reviews

See the guideline and AI policy for information on the review process. A summary of reviews will appear here.

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

#36384 <img src="https://drahtbot.space/ack_count/bitcoin/bitcoin/36384.svg"> (rpc: Use self.Arg<_>(name) helper over manual and duplicate parsing by maflcko)
#36339 <img src="https://drahtbot.space/ack_count/bitcoin/bitcoin/36339.svg"> (wallet: avoid int overflow in listtransactions by kriss39)
#36167 <img src="https://drahtbot.space/ack_count/bitcoin/bitcoin/36167.svg"> ([RFC] Enable -Wunused by fanquake)

If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.

l0rinc commented at 11:26 PM on September 15, 2026: contributor

Could you please split the related fixes into commits, explaining them briefly in the commit message, describing the problem at a high level and explaining the chosen solution. The changes seem unrelated; by grouping them into focused commits, we can selectively review the suggestion instead of accepting or rejecting all of it.

wallet rpc: name the skip argument in the listtransactions error

The listtransactions error for a negative skip said "Negative from",
referencing the argument by its old name. The argument has been called
skip in the help for years; say "Negative skip".")

5fcbbf8352

wallet rpc: name the failing argument in listsinceblock

listsinceblock rejected target_confirmations < 1 with a bare
"Invalid parameter", not saying which argument was wrong. Name it,
matching the neighboring "Invalid start_height" error.")

9aa8977c02

wallet rpc: fix the misleading sendmany example

The sendmany example claimed to set "the confirmation" by passing a
value in the minconf position, but minconf is an ignored dummy, so the
example taught a no-op. Describe what the example actually sets (the
comment) and pass null for the ignored placeholder in both examples.")

f214b2c9fe

in src/wallet/rpc/coins.cpp:175 in 3a2a982d4e

 171 | @@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ RPCMethod getbalance()
 172 |                      {"dummy", RPCArg::Type::STR, RPCArg::Optional::OMITTED, "Remains for backward compatibility. Must be excluded or set to \"*\".",
 173 |                          RPCArgOptions{.placeholder = true}},
 174 |                      {"minconf", RPCArg::Type::NUM, RPCArg::Default{0}, "Only include transactions confirmed at least this many times."},
 175 | -                    {"include_watchonly", RPCArg::Type::BOOL, RPCArg::Default{false}, "No longer used"},
 176 | +                    {"include_watchonly", RPCArg::Type::BOOL, RPCArg::Default{false}, "(DEPRECATED) No longer used"},

maflcko commented at 5:34 AM on September 16, 2026:

Seems fine, but I wonder if this should be deprecated/removed for real.

Maintaining (and bike shedding) the deprecated stuff seems confusing and not too helpful.

Not sure if this requires an -deprecatedrpc cycle, but I guess it can't hurt.

Also, would probably require updating the type to OBJ_NAMED_PARAMS for safety.

bitcoin deleted a comment on Sep 16, 2026

MrHodlX commented at 12:10 PM on September 16, 2026: none

Fair point — this commit only makes the marker consistent while the argument exists. A real deprecation/removal cycle (with the OBJ_NAMED_PARAMS type update) can be a follow-up PR rather than expanding the scope here.

maflcko commented at 1:40 PM on September 16, 2026: member

idk, you are adding two commits to modify ~dead code. Either it matters and it should be removed/deprecated properly, or it doesn't matter and the commit can just be dropped.

DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Sep 18, 2026

DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Sep 18, 2026