doc: comment "add only reachable addresses to addrman"#26040
doc: comment "add only reachable addresses to addrman"#26040maflcko merged 1 commit intobitcoin:masterfrom
Conversation
|
ACK 9094951cd09c62aa6fd2214f90e3eb87ca2d98af |
kristapsk
force-pushed
the
onlynet_dns-comment
branch
from
9094951 to
a7b4f97
Compare
Zero-1729
left a comment
Zero-1729
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
crACK a7b4f97b016eb7728d6381765269d228a4093492
vasild
left a comment
vasild
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ACK a7b4f97b016eb7728d6381765269d228a4093492
I would hope "until it's fixed". :) |
kristapsk
force-pushed
the
onlynet_dns-comment
branch
from
a7b4f97 to
ce42570
Compare
|
Addressed additional review comments. |
amovfx
left a comment
amovfx
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm confused about the broken checks, all I see is a doc string.
|
|
||
| if (add_fixed_seeds_now) { | ||
| std::vector<CAddress> seed_addrs{ConvertSeeds(Params().FixedSeeds())}; | ||
| // We will not make outgoing connections to peers that are unreachable |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe it wants:
/* Blah
* blah
* blah */There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, there are two random funcional tests failing in each failed CI run for some reason (different one in each case), should not be related with this change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The second one is new to me, I opened #26051 - but yes, obviously unrelated.
|
ACK ce42570 |
…drman" ce42570 doc: comment "add only reachable addresses to addrman" (Kristaps Kaupe) Pull request description: Proposed by Sjors during review of bitcoin#25678, was likely just missed, as it also for me looks a code where comment will not hurt. bitcoin#25678 (comment) ACKs for top commit: mzumsande: ACK ce42570 vasild: ACK ce42570 Zero-1729: re-ACK ce42570 Tree-SHA512: ef085d527349de07c1b43ed39e55e34b29cb0137c9509bd14a1af88206f7d4aa7dfec1dca53a9deaed67a2d0f32fa21e0b1a04d4d5d7f8a265dfab3b62bf8c54
8 participants
Proposed by Sjors during review of #25678, was likely just missed, as it also for me looks a code where comment will not hurt.
#25678 (comment)