Commandeering this to put in the minor fixes required - the GUI stuff can be submitted separately later as pointed out
- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
Advanced Search
Jul 28 2017
All fine (tested)
Jul 27 2017
All good
LGTM
@AtlasShrugging : I reviewed and ran the tests over your code, it's good, but please amend the Summary and Test Plan based on our discussion above, then I can accept...
Test plan for such error changes needs to include system test suite.
@AtlasShrugging re: your Test Plan question:
Jul 26 2017
Thanks for clarifying.
I would have liked to see some more info on how to obtain the legacy data that is referred to in the test plan, but the code changes here look alright to me now.
Looks good to me.
Jul 25 2017
Good news on the testing front.
Updated to remove the comment as discussed
Accepting this, changes look ok but it's just easier to look for missed things once this is merged.
Didn't spot issues with this change.
I put this back in Review based on sickpig's comment and the need to still test building of the Debian packages.
Jul 24 2017
@CCulianu : any way to accelerate the leak for testing purposes?
To clarify the completely removed comment. Rest looks good to me.
Add further user-visible changes submitted by Github user ethernomad
Updated with further user-visible changes submitted via Github by 'ethernomad' in this partially overlapping PR:
Refer: https://github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc/pull/27
Jul 23 2017
No point in keeping this around then.
Could you explain how validation.cpp:1460 ff. are not using the new template class?
Jul 22 2017
Pending test case for CHashVerifier class
LGTM, just have a question about why return value is ignored in one place.
Test plan requires some legacy data. Could you add note how to obtain such legacy data, so the test becomes reproducible.
Rest of code changes look good, but introducing a new class without a unit test?
Jul 21 2017
Update from review comment
Jul 20 2017
Tested ok
and it should be " adjustment" in the title.
Didn't notice any defects in review.
Regression tests were ok, save for a couple of tests which fail intermittently, but those failures seem unrelated to the change at hand.
Passed tests.
Note about test plan random seed:
Reviewed, no objections, ran the extended tests and passed.
Jul 19 2017
Jul 18 2017
In D332#5765, @Candunc wrote:Yes, I can add this information.