Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#36136: rpc: remove stale "canonical form" claim from getdescriptorinfo help
What changed, and why it matters
This is a one-word documentation fix in the help text of a Bitcoin Core RPC command. It removes the claim that getdescriptorinfo returns a descriptor in 'canonical form', because the command actually preserves caller-specific formatting such as apostrophe versus 'h' hardened-derivation markers and key ordering. There is no code behavior change and no security impact.
No action required. This is a documentation-only correction with no security or behavioral effect.
Security signals we found
No strong security signals were identified.
Evidence from the diff
The commit changes a single help string in src/rpc/output_script.cpp for the getdescriptorinfo RPC. The previous wording said the returned descriptor was ‘in canonical form’, but the implementation deliberately preserves the caller’s hardened-derivation marker style, key order in multi/sortedmulti expressions, and recomputes the checksum over the input. The patch only updates the help text; no logic, parsing, serialization, or checksum code is modified.
Changed components
src/rpc/output_script.cppgetdescriptorinfo RPC help textInspect captured patch +1 / −1
### src/rpc/output_script.cpp
@@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ static RPCMethod getdescriptorinfo()
RPCResult{
RPCResult::Type::OBJ, "", "",
{
- {RPCResult::Type::STR, "descriptor", "The descriptor in canonical form, without private keys. For a multipath descriptor, only the first will be returned."},
+ {RPCResult::Type::STR, "descriptor", "The descriptor, without private keys. For a multipath descriptor, only the first will be returned."},
{RPCResult::Type::ARR, "multipath_expansion", /*optional=*/true, "All descriptors produced by expanding multipath derivation elements. Only if the provided descriptor specifies multipath derivation elements.",
{
{RPCResult::Type::STR, "", ""},Why this scored 15/100
Community notes
Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.
The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.