Clarify description of blockindex #7541

1. 
   pinheadmz commented at 7:45 pm on February 16, 2016: member

   see issues:

   https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1237

   #7532

2. 
   sipa commented at 7:47 pm on February 16, 2016: member

   utACK
3. 
   paveljanik commented at 7:59 pm on February 16, 2016: contributor

   ACK https://github.com/pinheadmz/bitcoin/commit/7f01e4e6411418bee3888caadf9fdb59b4b99622 Right, using “index” instead of “position” is better here.
4. in src/wallet/rpcwallet.cpp: in 7f01e4e641 outdated

   1443@@ -1444,7 +1444,7 @@ UniValue listtransactions(const UniValue& params, bool fHelp)
   1444             "    \"trusted\": xxx            (bool) Whether we consider the outputs of this unconfirmed transaction safe to spend.\n"
   1445             "    \"blockhash\": \"hashvalue\", (string) The block hash containing the transaction. Available for 'send' and 'receive'\n"
   1446             "                                          category of transactions.\n"
   1447-            "    \"blockindex\": n,          (numeric) The block index containing the transaction. Available for 'send' and 'receive'\n"
   1448+            "    \"blockindex\": n,          (numeric) The position of the transaction in the block that includes it. Available for 'send' and 'receive'\n"
   

   ---

   ---

   

   dcousens commented at 10:21 pm on February 16, 2016:

   tiny nit: position seems slightly non-conventional?

   The index of the transaction in the block that includes it.

   ---

   

   instagibbs commented at 10:40 pm on February 16, 2016:

   Agreed with this slight re-phrasing

   ---

   

   laanwj commented at 9:01 am on February 17, 2016:

   I’d prefer to stick with index too. It has a well-defined meaning, while position is too general (it could be a byte offset, or a set of 3D coordinates within the unit block…).

   ---

   

   pinheadmz commented at 9:59 pm on February 17, 2016:

   cool, updated
5. 
   dcousens commented at 10:22 pm on February 16, 2016: contributor

   utACK 7f01e4e
6. laanwj added the label Docs and Output on Feb 17, 2016
7. 
   instagibbs commented at 11:51 pm on February 17, 2016: member

   utACK
8. 
   paveljanik commented at 6:23 am on February 18, 2016: contributor

   ACK https://github.com/pinheadmz/bitcoin/commit/ef40f6b0703fb2004183b85bdd2fb9e88b58b349 after squash
9. 
   jonasschnelli commented at 2:34 pm on February 18, 2016: contributor

   ACK ef40f6b0703fb2004183b85bdd2fb9e88b58b349.
10. 
    laanwj commented at 5:48 pm on February 18, 2016: member

    Before merging, can you please squash these changes into one commit? e.g.

    0$ git rebase -i 8b70a64
    

    In the editor, replace the second ‘pick’ with ‘f’, then save and exit. Then, force-push the result to this branch with

    0git push -f origin master
    

11. Clarify description of blockindex

    see issues:
    
    https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1237
    
    https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7532

    7eef1d0dad
12. 
    pinheadmz commented at 8:44 pm on February 18, 2016: member

    @laanwj thanks for your help
13. laanwj merged this on Feb 19, 2016
14. laanwj closed this on Feb 19, 2016

    ---

15. laanwj referenced this in commit b6e00af819 on Feb 19, 2016
16. 
    MarcoFalke commented at 8:16 am on February 26, 2016: member

    @laanwj I guess this could be backported to 0.12.1

    Also, Post-merge ACK.

17. laanwj added the label Needs backport on Mar 3, 2016
18. MarcoFalke referenced this in commit 23bb798d14 on Apr 25, 2016
19. MarcoFalke referenced this in commit 52c101158f on Apr 27, 2016
20. 
    MarcoFalke commented at 10:56 am on June 9, 2016: member

    Backported as part of #7938. Removing label ‘Needs backport’.
21. MarcoFalke removed the label Needs backport on Jun 9, 2016
22. thokon00 referenced this in commit 74cebf6e2e on Jun 28, 2016
23. MarcoFalke locked this on Sep 8, 2021

Contributors
pinheadmz sipa paveljanik dcousens instagibbs laanwj jonasschnelli MarcoFalke

Labels
Docs