Fix help, add RPC tests for getblockheader#7194
Conversation
|
Nice. utACK. |
qa/rpc-tests/test_framework/util.py
Outdated
82088e2 to
3af5edc
Compare
|
@jonasschnelli good point, thanks. I've changed the PR title to reflect this. |
|
utACK |
|
talked with @morcos out-of-band, sounds as though he's cool with changes as they are. |
src/rpcblockchain.cpp
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What about "Expected number of hashes required to produce the current chain"?
Current wording could be read as "do that work, will get the current chain", which is a bit unlikely. :)
|
utACK modulo wording |
3af5edc to
442afca
Compare
qa/rpc-tests/test_framework/util.py
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think you want:
elif not re.match('[abcdef0-9]+$', string):
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Very true :). willfix
442afca to
135d6ec
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's the expected number of hashes up to this point in the chain, not the entire chain. AFAIK
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This message is based on @sipa's description of chainwork and was vetted previously by @petertodd. You may want to close the PR you reference above; it was opened after this one and doesn't include tests.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, I disagree that it's clear, but if everyone else is fine with it I can conform as well.
Regardless, my pull is not covered here, so not sure why would I close it?
edit: My title wasn't clear, so I added the specific rpc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps my newer suggestion is equitable?
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7232/files#r48769375
|
ping on this |
|
I'll start reviewing again after new year.
|
|
utACK |
Continuing to chip away at the untested RPC interface. This PR:
getblockheader(previously uncovered)getblockheaderRPC help