.
. #35290
pull taserz wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from taserz:fix/importdescriptors-timestamp-per-item-error changing 1 files +11 −3-
taserz commented at 5:28 PM on May 14, 2026: none
-
256ab676bc
wallet: importdescriptors: report per-item error for invalid timestamp
A missing or malformed "timestamp" field in any batch entry caused GetImportTimestamp() to throw, unwinding the entire RPC and discarding any results already built. Items processed before the throw were already committed to the wallet, leaving the caller unable to tell which items succeeded. All other validation errors (bad descriptor, unknown key, etc.) are already caught inside ProcessDescriptorImport and returned as result[i].error. Make timestamp validation consistent with that contract by wrapping the GetImportTimestamp call in a try/catch that pushes the error into result[i].error and continues to the next item. The rescan loop re-calls GetImportTimestamp per-item when composing the final response after a partial-rescan failure. It already guards already-errored items via `results.at(i).exists("error")`, but the short-circuit only fires if that operand appears first. Swap the || operands so that items with a pre-existing error skip the call entirely. Fixes #35181 - DrahtBot added the label Wallet on May 14, 2026
-
DrahtBot commented at 5:28 PM on May 14, 2026: contributor
<!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
<!--006a51241073e994b41acfe9ec718e94-->
Code Coverage & Benchmarks
For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/35290.
<!--021abf342d371248e50ceaed478a90ca-->
Reviews
See the guideline for information on the review process. A summary of reviews will appear here.
<!--5faf32d7da4f0f540f40219e4f7537a3-->
-
maflcko commented at 5:56 PM on May 14, 2026: member
Thx, but LLM output is not accepted if the author can not properly explain, test or could have written the change themselves.
The bottleneck in this project has always been review and testing, not writing code. Development here is intentionally conservative and slow, and reviewer attention is the scarcest resource we have. LLMs have made this worse, anyone can now prompt them and post their output as PRs. There is an infinite amount plausible looking "improvements" for LLMs to suggest and work on.
Unless we fully trust LLMs to both write and review code, humans still have to spend time understanding the proposed changes, which incurs a non-zero cost for every opened PR.
I understand that contributing to this project can be intimidating, and using LLMs may seem tempting, but it really creates more issues for this project than it solves. The best way to help this project, is to review and test changes. You can use LLMs for this, but you shouldn't solely rely on them, or just post their output.
I'm not asking you to close this PR. I am asking you to reconsider whether it's something you genuinely think the project should pursue, independent of what your LLM suggested.
- maflcko closed this on May 14, 2026
-
taserz commented at 6:28 PM on May 14, 2026: none
I'll resync core when I have a chance to confirm was trying to avoid doing this entirely since it seemed rather simple.
- fanquake renamed this:
wallet: importdescriptors: report per-item error for invalid timestamp
.
on May 18, 2026 - DrahtBot removed the label Wallet on May 18, 2026
- bitcoin locked this on May 18, 2026
