8000 refactor: move Boost Datetime usage to wallet by fanquake · Pull Request #26198 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to content

refactor: move Boost Datetime usage to wallet #26198

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 3, 2022

Conversation

fanquake
Copy link
Member

This means we don't need Boost Datetime in a --disable-wallet build, and it isn't included in the kernel (via time.h/cpp). Split from a larger boost removal branch/effort.

@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

  • #26094 (rpc: Return block hash & height in getbalances, gettransaction and getwalletinfo by aureleoules)
  • #25722 (refactor: Use util::Result class for wallet loading by ryanofsky)

If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.

Copy link
Contributor
@aureleoules aureleoules left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ACK aec3448

@hebasto
Copy link
Member
hebasto commented Sep 29, 2022

This means we don't need Boost Datetime in a --disable-wallet build,

Could it be enforced to avoid reintroducing by accident in the future? lint-includes.py?

Copy link
Member
@hebasto hebasto left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ACK aec3448, I have reviewed the code and it looks OK, I agree it can be merged.

@theuni
Copy link
Member
theuni commented Sep 29, 2022

Concept ACK.

@theuni
Copy link
Member
theuni commented Sep 30, 2022

ACK aec3448. Agree with @hebasto's comment to avoid losing some test coverage.

Nice to relegate this to wallet only.

@bitcoin bitcoin deleted a comment Oct 1, 2022
This means we don't need datetime in a --disable-wallet build, and it
isn't included in the kernel.
@fanquake fanquake force-pushed the move_wallet_boost_out branch from aec3448 to 079cf88 Compare October 1, 2022 10:44
Copy link
Member
@hebasto hebasto left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

re-ACK 079cf88

Copy link
Contributor
@aureleoules aureleoules left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

re-ACK 079cf88 - rebased and two additional unit tests since my last review.

Copy link
Member
@jarolrod jarolrod left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

crACK 079cf88

@bitcoin bitcoin deleted a comment from MarcusMWilliams Oct 3, 2022
@maflcko
Copy link
Member
maflcko commented Oct 3, 2022

This is reverting 9e2c623, but seems fine if the goal is to remove boost from kernel?

@fanquake
Copy link
Member Author
fanquake commented Oct 3, 2022

but seems fine if the goal is to remove boost from kernel?

Yes, and removing it from bitcoind+utils more generally. There's no reason for this wallet-only Boost usage to be sucked into everything else.

@maflcko
Copy link
Member
maflcko commented Oct 3, 2022

Right, I can't see a use case to parse this outside of the wallet, so lgtm

@fanquake fanquake merged commit c21b32c into bitcoin:master Oct 3, 2022
@fanquake fanquake deleted the move_wallet_boost_out branch October 3, 2022 10:14
sidhujag pushed a commit to syscoin/syscoin that referenced this pull request Oct 4, 2022
@bitcoin bitcoin locked and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 3, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
51D7
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants
0