backport: Merge bitcoin#29144, 28946, 28980, 28554, 28414#7354
backport: Merge bitcoin#29144, 28946, 28980, 28554, 28414#7354vijaydasmp wants to merge 5 commits into
Conversation
✅ No Merge Conflicts DetectedThis PR currently has no conflicts with other open PRs. |
vijaydasmp
changed the title
vijaydasmp
force-pushed
the
June_2026_1
branch
2 times, most recently
from
c3073b7 to
e5faf0f
Compare
e901404 settings: add auto-generated warning msg for editing the file manually (furszy) 966f5de init: improve corrupted/empty settings file error msg (furszy) Pull request description: Small and simple issue reported [here](https://community.umbrel.com/t/bitcoin-docker-container-keeps-restarting/2144). Improving a confusing situation reported by users who did not understand why a settings parsing error occurred when the file was empty and did not know how to solve it. Empty setting file could be due (1) corruption or (2) an user manually cleaning up the file content. In both scenarios, the 'Unable to parse settings file' error does not help the user move forward. ACKs for top commit: achow101: ACK e901404 hebasto: re-ACK e901404. ryanofsky: Code review ACK e901404. Just whitespace formatting changes and shortening a test string literal since last review shaavan: Code review ACK e901404 Tree-SHA512: 2910654c6b9e9112de391eedb8e46980280f822fa3059724dd278db7436804dd27fae628d2003f2c6ac1599b07ac5c589af016be693486e949f558515e662bec
8f6ab31 init: don't delete PID file if it was not generated (willcl-ark) Pull request description: In a similar vein to bitcoin#28784, if a second `bitcoind` is started using the same datadir it will fail to start up, but during shutdown remove the PID file from the first `bitcoind` instance. ACKs for top commit: achow101: ACK 8f6ab31 andrewtoth: ACK 8f6ab31 romanz: ACK bitcoin@8f6ab31 Tree-SHA512: c9af703cbfa179d33ef9580a51e86c1b0acbd28daa18c8d2e5e5ff796ab4d3e2009a962a47e6046a0e5ece936f8a06ee8af5fdf8ff4ae1e52cbcdbec4b942271
…n and backup requirement ca09415 rpc, doc: encryptwallet, mention HD seed rotation and new backup (furszy) Pull request description: Small and simple PR, updating the `encryptwallet` help message. Better to notify users about the HD seed rotation and the new backup requirement before executing the encryption process. Ensuring they are prepared to update previous backups and securely safeguard the updated wallet file. ACKs for top commit: S3RK: ACK ca09415 achow101: ACK ca09415 Tree-SHA512: f0ee65f5cea66450566e3a85e066d4c06b3293dd0e0b2ed5fafdb7fb11da0a2cd94407299a3c57a0706c2ed782f8eabb73443e85d8099a62a3fb10a02636ab46
…s passed to getnetworkhashps RPC 9ac114e Throw error if invalid parameters passed to getnetworkhashps RPC endpoint (Jameson Lopp) Pull request description: When writing some scripts that iterated over many blocks to generate hashrate estimates I realized that my script was going out of range of the current chain tip height but was not encountering any errors. I believe that passing an invalid block height to this function but receiving the hashrate estimate for the chain tip instead should be considered unexpected behavior. ACKs for top commit: Sjors: re-utACK 9ac114e kevkevinpal: reACK [9ac114e](bitcoin@9ac114e) achow101: ACK 9ac114e Tree-SHA512: eefb465c2dd654fc48267f444e1809597ec5363cdd131ea9ec812458fed1e4bffbbbb0617d74687c9f7bb16274b598d8292f5eeb7953421e5d2a8dc2cc081f2b
vijaydasmp
force-pushed
the
June_2026_1
branch
3 times, most recently
from
f6efcb6 to
fd42f3d
Compare
…sspsbt if complete 2e249b9 doc: add release note for PR bitcoin#28414 (Matthew Zipkin) 4614332 test: remove unnecessary finalizepsbt rpc calls (ismaelsadeeq) e3d484b wallet rpc: return final tx hex from walletprocesspsbt if complete (Matthew Zipkin) Pull request description: See bitcoin#28363 (comment) `walletprocesspsbt` currently returns a base64-encoded PSBT and a boolean indicating if the tx is "complete". If it is complete, the base64 PSBT can be finalized with `finalizepsbt` which returns the hex-encoded transaction suitable for `sendrawtransaction`. With this patch, `walletprocesspsbt` return object will ALSO include the broadcast-able hex string if the tx is already final. This saves users the extra step of calling `finalizepsbt` assuming they have already inspected and approve the transaction from earlier steps. ACKs for top commit: ismaelsadeeq: re ACK 2e249b9 BrandonOdiwuor: re ACK 2e249b9 Randy808: Tested ACK 2e249b9 achow101: ACK 2e249b9 ishaanam: ACK 2e249b9 Tree-SHA512: 229c1103265a9b4248f080935a7ad5607c3be3f9a096a9ab6554093b2cd8aa8b4d1fa55b1b97d3925ba208dbc3ccba4e4d37c40e1491db0d27ba3d9fe98f931e
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: baf55e1735
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| "For security reasons, the encryption process will generate a new HD seed, resulting\n" | ||
| "in the creation of a fresh set of active descriptors. Therefore, it is crucial to\n" | ||
| "securely back up the newly generated wallet file using the backupwallet RPC.\n", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For every nonblank HD wallet, this help text claims encryption generates a new seed and descriptors, but CWallet::EncryptWallet() explicitly keeps the existing seed and mnemonic for descriptor wallets and only tops up legacy HD wallets (src/wallet/wallet.cpp:872-883). This can mislead users about which backup material controls their funds; document Dash's actual behavior instead of the Bitcoin Core seed-rotation behavior.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| if (!values.contains("_warning_")) { | ||
| out.pushKV("_warning_", strprintf("This file is automatically generated and updated by %s. Please do not edit this file while the node " | ||
| "is running, as any changes might be ignored or overwritten.", | ||
| PACKAGE_NAME)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
After the first settings write, the next startup reads _warning_ into m_settings.rw_settings because ReadSettings() imports every JSON key. ArgsManager::ReadSettingsFile() then treats it as an unknown setting and logs Ignoring unknown rw_settings value _warning_, followed by logging it as a setting, on every normal startup. Filter this metadata key while reading (or before settings validation) so the generated warning is not interpreted as configuration.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
WalkthroughThis PR merges four independent improvements. Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~25 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3 | ❌ 2❌ Failed checks (1 warning, 1 inconclusive)
✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@src/wallet/rpc/encrypt.cpp`:
- Around line 223-227: The help text in the encryptwallet RPC command (around
lines 223-227) claims encryption always generates a fresh HD seed and
descriptors, but the actual returned message (around lines 270-273)
distinguishes between HD-enabled and non-HD wallets with different backup
guidance. Update the help text to conditionally describe the backup behavior
based on wallet type: for HD-enabled wallets, mention the fresh HD
seed/descriptors generation and backupwallet requirement; for non-HD wallets,
provide the appropriate alternative guidance. This aligns the help documentation
with the actual runtime behavior and prevents conflicting instructions to users.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Repository UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: ae84c2f5-b22f-4a95-95bc-2abe0a3435e6
📒 Files selected for processing (16)
doc/release-notes-28414.mdsrc/init.cppsrc/qt/test/optiontests.cppsrc/rpc/mining.cppsrc/test/settings_tests.cppsrc/util/settings.cppsrc/wallet/rpc/encrypt.cppsrc/wallet/rpc/spend.cpptest/functional/feature_filelock.pytest/functional/feature_settings.pytest/functional/rpc_blockchain.pytest/functional/rpc_psbt.pytest/functional/wallet_fundrawtransaction.pytest/functional/wallet_multisig_descriptor_psbt.pytest/functional/wallet_send.pytest/functional/wallet_signer.py
| "If the wallet is already encrypted, use the walletpassphrasechange call.\n" | ||
| "** IMPORTANT **\n" | ||
| "For security reasons, the encryption process will generate a new HD seed, resulting\n" | ||
| "in the creation of a fresh set of active descriptors. Therefore, it is crucial to\n" | ||
| "securely back up the newly generated wallet file using the backupwallet RPC.\n", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Keep the backup guidance consistent with the actual wallet state.
The new help text says encryption always generates a fresh HD seed/descriptors, but the returned message still distinguishes HD-enabled wallets from non-HD wallets, and the provided GUI/docs snippets show those cases need different backup guidance. As written, users can get conflicting instructions about whether to preserve seed-based backups or make a new backupwallet backup.
Based on the provided GUI/docs snippets, the RPC text should match the same HD/non-HD behavior.
🛠 Suggested wording adjustment
- "For security reasons, the encryption process will generate a new HD seed, resulting\n"
- "in the creation of a fresh set of active descriptors. Therefore, it is crucial to\n"
- "securely back up the newly generated wallet file using the backupwallet RPC.\n",
+ "For security reasons, encrypting the wallet changes the backup procedure.\n"
+ "If the wallet is HD-enabled, preserve the existing seed-based backup guidance; otherwise,\n"
+ "create a new backup with the backupwallet RPC.\n",
...
- return "wallet encrypted; The keypool has been flushed. You need to make a new backup with the backupwallet RPC.";
+ return "wallet encrypted; The keypool has been flushed. Make sure you create a new backup with the backupwallet RPC.";Also applies to: 270-273
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@src/wallet/rpc/encrypt.cpp` around lines 223 - 227, The help text in the
encryptwallet RPC command (around lines 223-227) claims encryption always
generates a fresh HD seed and descriptors, but the actual returned message
(around lines 270-273) distinguishes between HD-enabled and non-HD wallets with
different backup guidance. Update the help text to conditionally describe the
backup behavior based on wallet type: for HD-enabled wallets, mention the fresh
HD seed/descriptors generation and backupwallet requirement; for non-HD wallets,
provide the appropriate alternative guidance. This aligns the help documentation
with the actual runtime behavior and prevents conflicting instructions to users.
|
✅ Review complete (commit baf55e1) |
vijaydasmp
changed the title
thepastaclaw
left a comment
thepastaclaw
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
Backport PR cherry-picking five small Bitcoin Core PRs (29144, 28946, 28980, 28554, 28414). All five adapt cleanly to Dash with appropriate symbol/branding substitutions, tests updated correctly, and no consensus-affecting changes. No blocking issues. One nitpick on PR title scope mismatch. Most agent findings critique upstream design choices on a backport, which is out of scope per the backport review process.
💬 1 nitpick(s)
| @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ | |||
| RPC Wallet | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💬 Nitpick: PR title references bitcoin#27302 but no corresponding cherry-pick is present
The PR title lists six PR numbers (29144, 28946, 28980, 28554, 27302, 28414) but the PR range only contains merge commits for five (29144, 28946, 28980, 28554, 28414). bitcoin#27302 does not appear to be cherry-picked in this branch. Either correct the title to remove 27302, or add the missing cherry-pick if it was intended to be part of this batch.
source: ['claude']
3 participants
bitcoin back ports