Conversation
083b01b to
d9bf973
Compare
|
NACK for 0.15 Although |
|
Really? Didn't realize we only marked it deprecated in 0.14. Ugh, OK :(. |
|
This should be rebased on #10841 and merged to master as soon as v0.15 has been cut. |
d9bf973 to
59b22ac
Compare
|
OK, rebased on #10841, this should be un-tagged 15 and tagged 16. |
|
This is way too late for 0.15, it's never a good idea to remove functionality last minute. |
|
I think it was reopened intended for 0.16 |
59b22ac to
360978c
Compare
|
Rebased on master. |
360978c to
3833524
Compare
|
0.15 has been split off, I suppose we can merge this now. |
|
Rebased. |
3833524 to
98acdc6
Compare
|
Needs silent merge conflict resolved. Also needs mention in the release notes. The following patch should do: diff --git a/doc/release-notes.md b/doc/release-notes.md
index aa1d1bea1..197a3aadc 100644
--- a/doc/release-notes.md
+++ b/doc/release-notes.md
@@ -56,6 +56,14 @@ frequently tested on them.
Notable changes
===============
+RPC changes
+-----------
+
+* The deprecated RPC `getinfo` was removed. It is recommended that the more specific RPCs are used:
+ - `getblockchaininfo`
+ - `getnetworkinfo`
+ - `getwalletinfo`
+
Credits
=======
diff --git a/src/wallet/wallet.h b/src/wallet/wallet.h
index 73ad3bdec..51abe2b25 100644
--- a/src/wallet/wallet.h
+++ b/src/wallet/wallet.h
@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ enum class FeeEstimateMode;
/** (client) version numbers for particular wallet features */
enum WalletFeature
{
- FEATURE_BASE = 10500, // the earliest version new wallets supports (only useful for getinfo's clientversion output)
+ FEATURE_BASE = 10500, // the earliest version new wallets supports (only useful for getwalletinfo's clientversion output)
FEATURE_WALLETCRYPT = 40000, // wallet encryption
FEATURE_COMPRPUBKEY = 60000, // compressed public keys
diff --git a/test/functional/bitcoin_cli.py b/test/functional/bitcoin_cli.py
index 103320209..ccae7c9a6 100755
--- a/test/functional/bitcoin_cli.py
+++ b/test/functional/bitcoin_cli.py
@@ -16,11 +16,11 @@ class TestBitcoinCli(BitcoinTestFramework):
def run_test(self):
"""Main test logic"""
- self.log.info("Compare responses from getinfo RPC and `bitcoin-cli getinfo`")
- cli_get_info = self.nodes[0].cli.getinfo()
- rpc_get_info = self.nodes[0].getinfo()
+ self.log.info("Compare responses from getwalletinfo RPC and `bitcoin-cli getwalletinfo`")
+ cli_get_wallet_info = self.nodes[0].cli.getwalletinfo()
+ rpc_get_wallet_info = self.nodes[0].getwalletinfo()
- assert_equal(cli_get_info, rpc_get_info)
+ assert_equal(cli_get_wallet_info, rpc_get_wallet_info)
if __name__ == '__main__':
TestBitcoinCli().main() |
98acdc6 to
f54f200
Compare
|
Fixed. |
|
Needs rebase. A couple comments:
Feel free to take and squash fixup commit here: jnewbery@10da6df |
test/functional/bitcoin_cli.py
Outdated
| self.log.info("Compare responses from getinfo RPC and `bitcoin-cli getinfo`") | ||
| cli_get_info = self.nodes[0].cli.getinfo() | ||
| rpc_get_info = self.nodes[0].getinfo() | ||
| self.log.info("Compare responses from gewallettinfo RPC and `bitcoin-cli getwalletinfo`") |
|
Heh, oops, missed that. Fixed now. |
@TheBlueMatt you still didn't get the developer-notes change from jnewbery@10da6df |
5aa420f to
aece8a4
Compare
|
Grrr, fixed now. |
|
Sorry, missing patch from @MarcoFalke? |
Well as you wrote them already it'd make sense to include them. But yes, people are really lazy with regard to writing release notes. Maybe the reminder issue was a bad idea as it encourages people to delay writing them :) |
aece8a4 (finally) remove getinfo in favor of more module-specific infos (Matt Corallo) Pull request description: I see no reason not to have done this in 0.13, let alone for 0.15. Tree-SHA512: ed3e36f99e9cb90304089e5957ddfbf74141e3e77d850e498e9e45dd8bc1deb9fe36b3fec4c43243023268670a45808de3c23d660df76fa27db6688814c464a5
Huh? Now you've removed the changes to |
|
No? The merged commit (aece8a4) has getwalletinfo and getblockchaininfo in it? |
|
My suggestion in #10838 (comment) was to improve coverage by testing all get*info RPCs and also update the developer notes. I included a link to a commit that improved test coverage and made the test code more compact and readable. No big deal. It was a suggestion, but this PR is fine as is. Post-commit ACK. |
|
@jnewbery If it is worth it, just submit a pull for it. |
|
@MarcoFalke it's not worth a PR |
|
@jnewbery ah, ok, someone linked toa different version of that that only tested 2 of the get*infos and I took that one instead, sorry I missed the full version. |
IMO release notes should be on the same level as source code. If a patch raises releases notes then those belong to that patch and should be reviewed, fixed, etc.. |
Agree. I've been mentioning that in pulls and tagged some with the 'Needs release notes' badge. Usually it has been left ignored. |
This allows further backports while postponing removal of "getinfo"
aece8a4 (finally) remove getinfo in favor of more module-specific infos (Matt Corallo) Pull request description: I see no reason not to have done this in 0.13, let alone for 0.15. Tree-SHA512: ed3e36f99e9cb90304089e5957ddfbf74141e3e77d850e498e9e45dd8bc1deb9fe36b3fec4c43243023268670a45808de3c23d660df76fa27db6688814c464a5
I see no reason not to have done this in 0.13, let alone for 0.15.