This is a bug - should be using the find() method .

This is passing down a list of checkers (or None if checking was not requested).

No booleans getting passed here.

I suppose we could give that a try here, since the user specifies how many nodes he wants, so he can create a corresponding list of OutputChecker() objects to pass through.

Will test whether that works ok, and update if so.

If it poses some unforeseen problem, I recommend not to get stuck in these weeds at this time, after all there is plenty to do and no test currently uses such a feature (since they all pass with current changes).

reminder to factor this out of the if-else

You are instantiating the check based on a bool. Doesn't matter if the bool is a member of an object you pass down or a direct argument, you are passing down a bool and instantiating based on it.

There is no other way to do this except set the bool attribute in the BitcoinTestFramework object up with a default value, unless you feel like modifying every test that uses it.

My think goes more among the line that there is no need to do this at all. abc-cmdline start nodes by itself and pass the checker down by itself already.

See general comment.

D184 was abandoned as explained in its history.

I could have made it into a separate diff, but since certain ways of running tests (out of tree) do not work well without this, I decided to present it as an integrated solution.

If you prefer to split it out again, please do so.

as commented above

See general comment.

pass the output checker down

You literally requested it in previous comment.

It doesn't looks like this is necessary either.

Ok, up to you to decide what you want to do with it.