[Trivial] Fix typo, wrong information in gettxout help text #7326

pull paveljanik wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from paveljanik:patch-15 changing 1 files +2 −2

paveljanik commented at 4:35 PM on January 10, 2016: contributor

... reported to me by other user.
Fix typo, wrong information in gettxout help text. 3a9dfe9d14
MarcoFalke commented at 4:37 PM on January 10, 2016: member

utACK 3a9dfe9
jmcorgan commented at 4:55 PM on January 10, 2016: contributor

utACK
jonasschnelli added the label Docs and Output on Jan 11, 2016
jonasschnelli added the label RPC on Jan 11, 2016
jonasschnelli commented at 7:52 AM on January 11, 2016: contributor

ACK
Xekyo commented at 8:41 AM on January 11, 2016: member

@paveljanik How about "vout index"?
instagibbs commented at 5:08 PM on January 11, 2016: member

If we're changing it I think @Xekyo suggestion is best.

paveljanik commented at 6:19 PM on January 11, 2016: contributor

Sorry, but:

$ git grep "The output number" *
rpcrawtransaction.cpp:            "         \"vout\":n        (numeric, required) The output number\n"
rpcrawtransaction.cpp:            "       \"vout\": n,         (numeric) The output number\n"
rpcrawtransaction.cpp:            "         \"vout\":n,                  (numeric, required) The output number\n"
wallet/rpcwallet.cpp:            "         \"vout\": n         (numeric) The output number\n"
$

Xekyo commented at 8:50 PM on January 11, 2016: member

@paveljanik: That may be so, but this number is more specifically the position within the transaction’s outputs. That’s why "index" would be more to the point. :) If others agree, it could be updated in all the positions that you listed. If we’re not going to change it, I agree, though, that it should be consistent.
paveljanik commented at 9:21 PM on January 11, 2016: contributor

@Xekyo It depends on your view. It can be index into vout array and the number of the vout in vouts. ;-)

I do not plan to change it in this PR.
Xekyo commented at 10:35 PM on January 11, 2016: member

I feel that "vout number" is ambiguous: For a minute I thought you were telling me the line referred to "the number of outputs" as in how many there are.

But, since it refers to "an unspent transaction output" here, index would be an improvement because it is the correct technical term, making it easier to grasp and more precise. Anyway, your PR is an improvement to the previous state, so I ACK.
laanwj merged this on Jan 13, 2016
laanwj closed this on Jan 13, 2016
laanwj referenced this in commit 2cd004b123 on Jan 13, 2016
luke-jr referenced this in commit 40e7d3058c on Feb 12, 2016
codablock referenced this in commit 4a3b5bd7a0 on Sep 16, 2017
codablock referenced this in commit a6bbd3b0fc on Sep 19, 2017
codablock referenced this in commit c581003f36 on Dec 9, 2017
codablock referenced this in commit 26a5dfe339 on Dec 9, 2017
DrahtBot locked this on Sep 8, 2021

Contributors

Labels