AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Informational 15 Bitcoin

test: functional: drop unused --keepcache argument

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by David Gumberg

100/100 · Strong
test: functional: drop unused --keepcache argument

At the time this was added in #10197, building the test cache took 21
seconds, as described in that PR, but this is no longer true, as
demonstrated by running the functional test framework with and without
the --keepcache arguments on master prior to this commit:

```
hyperfine --warmup 1 --export-markdown results.md --runs 3 \
-n 'without --keepcache' './build/test/functional/test_runner.py -j $(nproc)' \
-n 'with --keepcache' './build/test/functional/test_runner.py -j $(nproc) --keepcache'
```

| Command | Mean [s] | Min [s] | Max [s] | Relative |
|:----------------------|---------------:|--------:|---:|---:|
| `without --keepcache` | 76.373 ± 3.058 | 74.083 | 79.846 | 1.00 |
| `with --keepcache` | 77.384 ± 1.836 | 75.952 | 79.454 | 1.01 ± 0.05 |

As a consequence, this argument can be removed from the test runner and
this also has the benefit of being able to use an RAII-like
`tempfile.TemporaryDirectory` instead of having to clean up the cache
manually at the end of test runs.

bitcoin/bitcoin#10197: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10197
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Uses a recognizable type or scope✓ Provides detailed explanatory context✓ Mentions testing or verification✓ Links an issue, advisory, or supporting reference
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit removes an unused command-line option called --keepcache from Bitcoin Core's functional test runner. It is a cleanup change that switches test cache handling to an automatic temporary directory. There is no security relevance.

Recommended action

No security action needed. Treat as ordinary maintenance/test cleanup.

Security signals we found

No strong security signals were identified.

Risk score

Why this scored 15/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 0/30
Exploitability 0/25
Stealth signal 0/15
Affected reach 0/15
Confidence 10/10
Evidence quality 5/5
Human-validated context

Community notes

Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.

No validated notes yet.

The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.