Report status of chain tips #5386

1. 
   sipa commented at 9:49 AM on November 27, 2014: member

   This makes the output a bit more intuitive when running on a synchronizing headers-first client:

   [
       {
           "height" : 310985,
           "hash" : "000000004b9d96cf156f9e74acdf03647a2f8665c5d98693ef5a9130efcc0106",
           "branchlen" : 182402,
           "status" : "headers-only"
       },
       {
           "height" : 128583,
           "hash" : "00000000119df3d17af48af07480d3d5a5966cfad28f40b08a79b55b02fd8df2",
           "branchlen" : 0,
           "status" : "active"
       }
   ]
   

2. 
   sipa commented at 9:50 AM on November 27, 2014: member

   Suggestions for the status strings welcome.

3. 
   gmaxwell commented at 10:10 AM on November 27, 2014: contributor

   Oh sweet. I started to type in suggestions to find you'd already done them and used the same names in the patch. dont use "???" in C/C++ code, it looks like a trigraph and will make some compilers whine. ("unknown" is fine) .

4. 
   gmaxwell commented at 10:12 AM on November 27, 2014: contributor

   "Valid" might be confusing. "Extinct" ? "valid-fork" ? (e.g. if I have one "active" and one "valid", which ones "better"?)

5. sipa force-pushed on Nov 27, 2014
6. sipa force-pushed on Nov 27, 2014
7. 
   sipa commented at 10:14 AM on November 27, 2014: member

   Updated. Changed some strings, and updated the (minimal) RPC unit test to check the status.

8. sipa force-pushed on Nov 27, 2014
9. 
   gmaxwell commented at 10:37 AM on November 27, 2014: contributor

   Update the help text too, please.

10. 
    gmaxwell commented at 10:49 AM on November 27, 2014: contributor

    The unit tests work, it seems... fix them to agree with the code please. :)

11. Report status of chain tips 1b91be49f5
12. sipa force-pushed on Nov 27, 2014
13. 
    sipa commented at 10:50 AM on November 27, 2014: member

    Done, done.

14. 
    gmaxwell commented at 1:14 PM on November 27, 2014: contributor

    ACK

15. laanwj added the label RPC on Nov 28, 2014
16. 
    sipa commented at 3:18 PM on November 28, 2014: member

    Suggested bikeshedding:

    • valid-fork: validated-fork
    • valid-headers: non-validated-fork
17. 
    gmaxwell commented at 8:26 PM on November 28, 2014: contributor

    I like validated fork, but non-validated-fork doesn't say anything about the fact that we don't have the blocks.

18. 
    sipa commented at 8:31 PM on November 28, 2014: member

    unexplored-fork? headers-only-fork?

19. 
    gmaxwell commented at 5:52 AM on November 29, 2014: contributor

    headers-only or unfetched-fork?

20. 
    sipa commented at 10:06 AM on November 29, 2014: member

    I'm actually wrong. What is currently called valid-headers is actually a fork for which we do have the blocks, but wasn't ever activated (thus we don't know whether the scripts are valid).

21. 
    gmaxwell commented at 11:42 PM on November 30, 2014: contributor

    Ah makes sense.

22. 
    gmaxwell commented at 11:45 PM on November 30, 2014: contributor

    I'm tagging this as 0.10 now because without it headers-first makes this RPC confusing. @laanwj if you disagree don't hesitate to untag.

23. gmaxwell added this to the milestone 0.10.0 on Nov 30, 2014
24. 
    laanwj commented at 10:37 AM on December 1, 2014: member

    I agree! ACK commithash 1b91be49f53936429d16fb841433139a66af6262 for 0.10 signature

25. laanwj merged this on Dec 1, 2014
26. laanwj closed this on Dec 1, 2014

    ---

27. laanwj referenced this in commit 0ddf4416cc on Dec 1, 2014
28. MarcoFalke locked this on Sep 8, 2021

Milestone
0.10.0