doc: fix incorrect description of `PackageMempoolChecks`
What the developer wrote
Authored by ismaelsadeeq
doc: fix incorrect description of `PackageMempoolChecks`
- We no longer enforce ancestor/descendant count limit
in both PreChecks and PackageMempoolChecks.
- This commit fixes the incorrect comment by just renaming
`PackageMempoolChecks` to `PackageRBFChecks`
- The method name is self explanatory now; hence no need
for a description comment.
What changed, and why it matters
This is a documentation-only change. A developer renamed a function called PackageMempoolChecks to PackageRBFChecks and removed an outdated comment. No actual transaction-validation logic was changed, so this cannot affect security or behavior.
No action needed; this is a non-functional documentation/refactoring change.
Security signals we found
No strong security signals were identified.
Evidence from the diff
The commit renames MemPoolAccept::PackageMempoolChecks to PackageRBFChecks and updates all call sites and comments. The old comment claimed the method enforced package ancestor/descendant limits, which is no longer true; the new name reflects that it only performs package RBF checks. The function body is identical apart from the name change.
Changed components
src/validation.cppInspect captured patch +10 / −12
diff --git a/src/validation.cpp b/src/validation.cpp
index a56bc054..4e924bc4 100644
--- a/src/validation.cpp
+++ b/src/validation.cpp
@@ -672,12 +672,10 @@ private:
// Run checks for mempool replace-by-fee, only used in AcceptSingleTransaction.
bool ReplacementChecks(Workspace& ws) EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED(cs_main, m_pool.cs);
- // Enforce package mempool ancestor/descendant limits (distinct from individual
- // ancestor/descendant limits done in PreChecks) and run Package RBF checks.
- bool PackageMempoolChecks(const std::vector<CTransactionRef>& txns,
- std::vector<Workspace>& workspaces,
- int64_t total_vsize,
- PackageValidationState& package_state) EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED(cs_main, m_pool.cs);
+ bool PackageRBFChecks(const std::vector<CTransactionRef>& txns,
+ std::vector<Workspace>& workspaces,
+ int64_t total_vsize,
+ PackageValidationState& package_state) EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED(cs_main, m_pool.cs);
// Run the script checks using our policy flags. As this can be slow, we should
// only invoke this on transactions that have otherwise passed policy checks.
@@ -1035,10 +1033,10 @@ bool MemPoolAccept::ReplacementChecks(Workspace& ws)
return true;
}
-bool MemPoolAccept::PackageMempoolChecks(const std::vector<CTransactionRef>& txns,
- std::vector<Workspace>& workspaces,
- const int64_t total_vsize,
- PackageValidationState& package_state)
+bool MemPoolAccept::PackageRBFChecks(const std::vector<CTransactionRef>& txns,
+ std::vector<Workspace>& workspaces,
+ const int64_t total_vsize,
+ PackageValidationState& package_state)
{
AssertLockHeld(cs_main);
AssertLockHeld(m_pool.cs);
@@ -1470,7 +1468,7 @@ PackageMempoolAcceptResult MemPoolAccept::AcceptMultipleTransactionsInternal(con
// needed by another transaction in the package. We also need to make sure that no package
// tx replaces (or replaces the ancestor of) the parent of another package tx. As long as we
// check these two things, we don't need to track the coins spent.
- // If a package tx conflicts with a mempool tx, PackageMempoolChecks() ensures later that any package RBF attempt
+ // If a package tx conflicts with a mempool tx, PackageRBFChecks() ensures later that any package RBF attempt
// has *no* in-mempool ancestors, so we don't have to worry about subsequent transactions in
// same package spending the same in-mempool outpoints. This needs to be revisited for general
// package RBF.
@@ -1513,7 +1511,7 @@ PackageMempoolAcceptResult MemPoolAccept::AcceptMultipleTransactionsInternal(con
}
// Apply package mempool RBF checks.
- if (m_subpackage.m_rbf && !PackageMempoolChecks(txns, workspaces, m_subpackage.m_total_vsize, package_state)) {
+ if (m_subpackage.m_rbf && !PackageRBFChecks(txns, workspaces, m_subpackage.m_total_vsize, package_state)) {
return PackageMempoolAcceptResult(package_state, std::move(results));
}
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.