stratospher
stratospher
so split off the last commit into #28267 since they aren't related to the fuzz test. (included https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28008#discussion_r1277460913 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28008#discussion_r1283327643 there) thinking about https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28263#discussion_r1292869677. will address it soon.
> Are you still working on this? yes! updated the PR to address https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28263#discussion_r1292869677.
>Instead of being a string, wouldn't make sense it to be an array? E.g. I want to get new/tried table address count for ipv5 and ipv6 together. i'm confused about...
thank you @amitiuttarwar and @brunoerg! I've updated the PR to include your suggestions: - added release notes - test coverage for different networks - hidden RPC check
thank you for the useful feedback! Splitting this into 2 separate PRs since it’d be easier to think about RPC and CLI parts separately. I’ve opened https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27511 for getaddrmaninfo RPC...
Rebased. Looking for feedback on [this comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26988#discussion_r1173966799) - whether it is desirable to have additional code complexity and maintain user space/backward compatability in the bitcoin-cli when client upgrades bitcoind but...
@luke-jr there was discussion [here](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26988#discussion_r1173964808) regarding whether to keep the RPC hidden/public. it was kept as a hidden RPC because: 1. a normal user wouldn't be interested in the new/tried...
Rebased. > I think it makes sense to unhide this RPC; we have plenty of get*info functions that are only really useful experts, and that's fine. It makes sense to...
Thank you for the reviews @pablomartin4btc! I've rebased the PR and included your [suggestion](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26988#discussion_r1360075599). > Also, regarding both the totals and per network differences between before and after this changes...
> What is the state of this @stratospher? Are you still looking for feedback on #26988 (comment)? @sr-gi, yes! that's the only unresolved conversation. i personally prefer the current approach...