Gloria Zhao

> Pre-review note: have you considered that wallet_import_rescan.py is a legacy wallet only test? Ah good point. ~I added a commit to run this test with descriptors as I couldn't...

I'm working on adding a descriptors version of this test so we can have both.

I've added another commit which has pretty much the same test but using descriptor wallets i.e. a rescan through `importdescriptors`. Just like the other test, you can reproduce the bug...

> Is there a reason both legacy and descriptor wallet tests aren't in the new wallet_rescan_unconfirmed test, though? That seems like a more logical grouping with less duplication? They use...

CI failure is unrelated, #29234

> See commit https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/f8273512a50d9ed03bc48803634fb8780b9023c7 (feel free to pull it). Sorry I hadn't seen this. Thanks, taken with a couple of edits.

I'm planning to merge this now and open another batch of backports

> The datacarriersize policy option is meant to limit the size of extra data allowed in transactions for relaying and mining. History of this config option suggests `datacarriersize` is meant...

ACK ea60c95be36a68ba98d1d23018587aa4d4d6bb1a, based on https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/pull/156745 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29192#issuecomment-1881144857 it looks like this fixes the issue. re https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29192#issuecomment-1906925728, the values that were failing the tests are irrelevant in the context we're using...

@luke-jr I don’t think adding a new vsize-based total package limit is necessary, the existing ancestor size limits are sufficient. #28471 already incorporated your bug fix to have CheckPackageLimits look...