Skip to content
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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: 1.15.0-dev
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

chromatic
Copy link
Member

This changes all occurrences of BITCOIN to DOGECOIN and bitcoind to dogecoind in all files in qa/. It does not change copyright information.

See comments in #3327 ; we discussed doing this in a major release.

This changes all occurrences of `BITCOIN` to `DOGECOIN` and `bitcoind`
to `dogecoind` in all files in `qa/`. It does not change copyright
information.
@patricklodder
Copy link
Member

concept is okay with me.

@daank-c
Copy link
Contributor

daank-c commented Apr 11, 2024

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.

@patricklodder
Copy link
Member

I think maybe it was the issue noted at #3464.

correct.

@chromatic chromatic marked this pull request as ready for review April 14, 2024 05:45
Copy link
Member

@patricklodder patricklodder left a 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
Copy link
Member

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
Copy link
Member

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.

@georgeartem
Copy link

georgeartem commented Apr 26, 2024 via email

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants