Skip to content

Conversation

@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

DrahtBot commented Jan 12, 2026

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

Code Coverage & Benchmarks

For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/34268.

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

Type Reviewers
ACK achow101, janb84, sedited

If your review is incorrectly listed, please copy-paste <!--meta-tag:bot-skip--> into the comment that the bot should ignore.

@glozow glozow force-pushed the 2026-01-29.3-backports branch from 689fccc to 00a8f41 Compare January 13, 2026 00:10
@glozow
Copy link
Member Author

glozow commented Jan 13, 2026

I dropped 113a422 since it was causing a failure and didn't seem necessary to backport.

@glozow glozow force-pushed the 2026-01-29.3-backports branch from 00a8f41 to b7ae655 Compare January 13, 2026 17:10
@glozow glozow marked this pull request as ready for review January 13, 2026 17:10
Copy link
Member

@achow101 achow101 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Release notes should probably say #34156 and #34215 rather than #34222

@glozow glozow force-pushed the 2026-01-29.3-backports branch from b7ae655 to 55fd7b9 Compare January 14, 2026 00:04
If something is imported into the wallet, it can change the 'from me'
status of a transaction. This status is only visible through
gettransaction's "fee" field which is only shown for transactions that
are 'from me'.

Github-Pull: bitcoin#33268
Rebased-From: e76c2f7
Instead of checking whether the total amount of inputs known by the
wallet is greater than 0, we should be checking for whether the input is
known by the wallet. This enables us to determine whether a transaction
spends an of output with an amount of 0, which is necessary for marking
0-value dust outputs as spent.

Github-Pull: bitcoin#33268
Rebased-From: 39a7dbd
@glozow glozow force-pushed the 2026-01-29.3-backports branch from 55fd7b9 to 794f666 Compare January 14, 2026 00:40
@glozow glozow mentioned this pull request Jan 14, 2026
2 tasks
@glozow glozow force-pushed the 2026-01-29.3-backports branch from 794f666 to b834447 Compare January 14, 2026 18:28
@achow101
Copy link
Member

ACK b834447

@glozow glozow requested a review from sedited January 14, 2026 18:38
Copy link
Contributor

@janb84 janb84 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ACK b834447

Listed backported pr files are all there except for 113a422 as stated and miner.cpp slightly deviates from the PR because of rebase with old code. Version is correctly bumped.

(Sorry the diff from the release-notes.mo threw me off, showing most was new)

@glozow
Copy link
Member Author

glozow commented Jan 14, 2026

(Sorry the diff from the release-notes.mo threw me off, showing most was new)

That's fine, and probably would have been better to leave the comment up.

Context: #33623 isn't a backport; it was directly merged to 29.x

Copy link
Contributor

@sedited sedited left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ACK b834447

Reproduced locally too

@fanquake fanquake merged commit fa91ad3 into bitcoin:29.x Jan 15, 2026
19 checks passed
@glozow glozow deleted the 2026-01-29.3-backports branch January 16, 2026 03:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants