f52f427b8e
f3ba916e8blint: ignore gitian keys file for spelling linter (Sebastian Falbesoner)da289a6c4alint: update list of spelling linter false positives (Sebastian Falbesoner)a0022f1cfbtest: bump codespell linter version to 2.0.0 (Sebastian Falbesoner) Pull request description: This small patch updates the ignore list for the spelling linter script (which uses `codespell`), both removing false-positives that are not relevant anymore and adding new ones. As [suggested by jonatack](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20762#issuecomment-750889701)~~, whose last name is now also part of the list :)~~. Also changed the linter script to not check the gitian keys file, as [suggested by hebasto](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20817#discussion_r550763409). The codespell version used is bumped to most recent version 2.0.0, which is more aware of some terms that were previously needed in the ignorelist for v1.17.1, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20817#issuecomment-753428669. Running spelling linter on master branch (repeated findings in the same file are removed to keep the output short): ``` $ ./test/lint/lint-spelling.sh contrib/gitian-keys/keys.txt:16: Atack ==> Attack doc/developer-notes.md:1284: inout ==> input, in out doc/psbt.md:122: Asend ==> Ascend, as end src/bench/verify_script.cpp:27: Keypair ==> Key pair src/blockencodings.h:30: Unser ==> Under, unset, unsure, user src/compressor.h:65: Unser ==> Under, unset, unsure, user src/core_read.cpp:131: presense ==> presence src/index/disktxpos.h:21: blockIn ==> blocking src/net_processing.h:67: anounce ==> announce src/netaddress.h:486: compatiblity ==> compatibility src/primitives/transaction.h:35: nIn ==> inn, min, bin, nine src/qt/bitcoinunits.cpp:101: nIn ==> inn, min, bin, nine src/rpc/blockchain.cpp:2150: nIn ==> inn, min, bin, nine src/rpc/misc.cpp:198: nIn ==> inn, min, bin, nine src/script/bitcoinconsensus.cpp:81: nIn ==> inn, min, bin, nine src/script/bitcoinconsensus.h:63: nIn ==> inn, min, bin, nine src/script/interpreter.cpp:1279: nIn ==> inn, min, bin, nine src/script/interpreter.h:222: nIn ==> inn, min, bin, nine src/script/sign.cpp:17: nIn ==> inn, min, bin, nine src/script/sign.h:39: nIn ==> inn, min, bin, nine src/serialize.h:181: Unser ==> Under, unset, unsure, user src/signet.cpp:142: nIn ==> inn, min, bin, nine src/test/base32_tests.cpp:17: fo ==> of, for src/test/base64_tests.cpp:17: fo ==> of, for src/test/script_tests.cpp:1509: nIn ==> inn, min, bin, nine src/test/sighash_tests.cpp:27: nIn ==> inn, min, bin, nine src/test/validation_tests.cpp:78: excercise ==> exercise src/undo.h:36: Unser ==> Under, unset, unsure, user src/validation.cpp:1403: nIn ==> inn, min, bin, nine src/validation.h:255: nIn ==> inn, min, bin, nine src/wallet/wallet.cpp:1532: nIn ==> inn, min, bin, nine src/wallet/walletdb.cpp:429: Crypted ==> Encrypted test/functional/feature_nulldummy.py:63: unnecssary ==> unnecessary test/functional/wallet_encryption.py:81: crypted ==> encrypted test/functional/wallet_upgradewallet.py:36: fpr ==> for, far, fps ^ Warning: codespell identified likely spelling errors. Any false positives? Add them to the list of ignored words in test/lint/lint-spelling.ignore-words.txt ``` Running spelling linter on PR branch: ``` $ ./test/lint/lint-spelling.sh src/core_read.cpp:131: presense ==> presence src/net_processing.h:67: anounce ==> announce src/netaddress.h:486: compatiblity ==> compatibility src/test/validation_tests.cpp:78: excercise ==> exercise src/wallet/walletdb.cpp:429: Crypted ==> Encrypted test/functional/feature_nulldummy.py:63: unnecssary ==> unnecessary test/functional/wallet_encryption.py:81: crypted ==> encrypted ^ Warning: codespell identified likely spelling errors. Any false positives? Add them to the list of ignored words in test/lint/lint-spelling.ignore-words.txt ``` This list of remaining findings doesn't contain false positives anymore -- the typos are fixed in PR https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20762. Happy new year! 🍾 ACKs for top commit: hebasto: re-ACKf3ba916e8b, only suggested changes since my [previous](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20817#pullrequestreview-560632881) review. jonatack: ACKf3ba916e8bI don't know if there are any particular issues with bumping codespell to v2.0.0, but locally running the spelling linter and the cirrus job at https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5004066998714368 both LGTM. Thanks for also verifying and removing the unused words from the ignore list. Tree-SHA512: e92ae6f16c01d4ff3d54f8c3a0ee95e12741f7bfe031d307a785f5cfd8a80525b16b34275f413b914c4a318f5166f9887399c21f2dad9cc7e9be41647042ef37
Bitcoin Core integration/staging tree
What is Bitcoin?
Bitcoin is an experimental digital currency that enables instant payments to anyone, anywhere in the world. Bitcoin uses peer-to-peer technology to operate with no central authority: managing transactions and issuing money are carried out collectively by the network. Bitcoin Core is the name of open source software which enables the use of this currency.
For more information, as well as an immediately usable, binary version of the Bitcoin Core software, see https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/, or read the original whitepaper.
License
Bitcoin Core is released under the terms of the MIT license. See COPYING for more information or see https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT.
Development Process
The master branch is regularly built (see doc/build-*.md for instructions) and tested, but it is not guaranteed to be
completely stable. Tags are created
regularly from release branches to indicate new official, stable release versions of Bitcoin Core.
The https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui repository is used exclusively for the development of the GUI. Its master branch is identical in all monotree repositories. Release branches and tags do not exist, so please do not fork that repository unless it is for development reasons.
The contribution workflow is described in CONTRIBUTING.md and useful hints for developers can be found in doc/developer-notes.md.
Testing
Testing and code review is the bottleneck for development; we get more pull requests than we can review and test on short notice. Please be patient and help out by testing other people's pull requests, and remember this is a security-critical project where any mistake might cost people lots of money.
Automated Testing
Developers are strongly encouraged to write unit tests for new code, and to
submit new unit tests for old code. Unit tests can be compiled and run
(assuming they weren't disabled in configure) with: make check. Further details on running
and extending unit tests can be found in /src/test/README.md.
There are also regression and integration tests, written
in Python, that are run automatically on the build server.
These tests can be run (if the test dependencies are installed) with: test/functional/test_runner.py
The CI (Continuous Integration) systems make sure that every pull request is built for Windows, Linux, and macOS, and that unit/sanity tests are run automatically.
Manual Quality Assurance (QA) Testing
Changes should be tested by somebody other than the developer who wrote the code. This is especially important for large or high-risk changes. It is useful to add a test plan to the pull request description if testing the changes is not straightforward.
Translations
Changes to translations as well as new translations can be submitted to Bitcoin Core's Transifex page.
Translations are periodically pulled from Transifex and merged into the git repository. See the translation process for details on how this works.
Important: We do not accept translation changes as GitHub pull requests because the next pull from Transifex would automatically overwrite them again.
Translators should also subscribe to the mailing list.