Re-PR from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18729
Now includes a bugfix too (-prune=2+ disabled the checkbox, but -prune=0/1 did not; this behaviour is necessary since -prune overrides GUI settings)
Re-PR from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18729
Now includes a bugfix too (-prune=2+ disabled the checkbox, but -prune=0/1 did not; this behaviour is necessary since -prune overrides GUI settings)
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
See the guideline for information on the review process.
| Type | Reviewers | 
|---|---|
| ACK | hebasto | 
| Stale ACK | hernanmarino | 
If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.
No conflicts as of last run.
288@@ -287,8 +289,9 @@ void Intro::setStatus(int status, const QString &message, quint64 bytesAvailable
289         ui->freeSpace->setText("");
290     } else {
291         m_bytes_available = bytesAvailable;
292-        if (ui->prune->isEnabled() && !(gArgs.IsArgSet("-prune") && gArgs.GetIntArg("-prune", 0) == 0)) {
293+        if (ui->prune->isEnabled() && m_prune_checkbox_is_default) {
294             ui->prune->setChecked(m_bytes_available < (m_blockchain_size_gb + m_chain_state_size_gb + 10) * GB_BYTES);
295+            m_prune_checkbox_is_default = true;
m_prune_checkbox_is_default to true here? Wasn’t it true already having entered into this block?
              
            -prune param set to 0, 1 and 600.
Perhaps I’ve some config that bypass this change? Could you please clarify? Sorry if I miss anything too obvius here.
        
      
-prune=2+disabled the checkbox
Looks like a bug in the master branch, as it should be like that:
0$ ./src/bitcoind -prune=2
1Error: Prune configured below the minimum of 550 MiB.  Please use a higher number.
🤔 There hasn’t been much activity lately and the CI seems to be failing.
If no one reviewed the current pull request by commit hash, a rebase can be considered. While the CI failure may be a false positive, the CI hasn’t been running for some time, so there may be a real issue hiding as well. A rebase triggers the latest CI and makes sure that no silent merge conflicts have snuck in.