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
Change Bitcoin to Dogecoin in qa/ files #3514
base: 1.15.0-dev
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Change Bitcoin to Dogecoin in qa/ files #3514
Conversation
This changes all occurrences of `BITCOIN` to `DOGECOIN` and `bitcoind` to `dogecoind` in all files in `qa/`. It does not change copyright information.
concept is okay with me. |
I'm curious why the first attempt through CI failed for i686-linux, but the second attempt passed (despite no new commits being pushed in). Edit: Actually, I think maybe it was the issue noted at #3464. |
correct. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please note there are still some bitcoin
artifacts that could be changed in:
qa/rpc-tests/test_framework/coverage.py:76
qa/rpc-tests/test_framework/util.py:303
qa/rpc-tests/test_framework/mininode.py:15
qa/rpc-tests/multi_rpc.py:27
qa/pull-tester/rpc-tests.py:338
For completeness, maybe the docs in qa/README.md
and qa/rpc-tests/README.md
should be amended too?
Other than that, tests pass x86_64 Ubuntu Jammy, and I left 2 inline comments about test comments that now make even less sense (but should not be fixed in this PR, imho)
# the test. | ||
def test_upgrade_after_activation(self, node, node_id): | ||
print("\tTesting software upgrade after softfork activation") | ||
|
||
assert(node_id != 0) # node0 is assumed to be a segwit-active bitcoind | ||
assert(node_id != 0) # node0 is assumed to be a segwit-active dogecoind |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note that this comment makes no sense. I think that it's not for this PR to fix (let's keep separation of concerns) but the backport debt is significantly greater than the name of the binary in a comment.
@@ -396,7 +396,7 @@ def check_compactblock_construction_from_block(self, version, header_and_shortid | |||
header_and_shortids.shortids.pop(0) | |||
index += 1 | |||
|
|||
# Test that bitcoind requests compact blocks when we announce new blocks | |||
# Test that dogecoind requests compact blocks when we announce new blocks |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note that the full comment block is not entirely valid for dogecoind
. No need to change that now, but it can be misleading.
👍
|
This changes all occurrences of
BITCOIN
toDOGECOIN
andbitcoind
todogecoind
in all files inqa/
. It does not change copyright information.See comments in #3327 ; we discussed doing this in a major release.