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

ci: Exclude feature_dbcrash.py under --v2transport --usecli

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by MarcoFalke

100/100 · Strong
ci: Exclude feature_dbcrash.py under --v2transport --usecli

The test should now be passing, but it is slow.

For example, the commit that enabled the test, took ~47 minutes on a
fast CPU, but using a heavy debug build:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/26434786214/job/77815064664?pr=35363#step:11:4101

...
Model name: AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 16-Core Processor
...
C++ compiler .......................... GNU 15.2.0, /usr/bin/g++
CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE ...................... Debug
Preprocessor defined macros ........... DEBUG DEBUG_LOCKORDER DEBUG_LOCKCONTENTION RPC_DOC_CHECK ABORT_ON_FAILED_ASSUME _GLIBCXX_DEBUG _GLIBCXX_DEBUG_PEDANTIC _LIBCPP_HARDENING_MODE=_LIBCPP_HARDENING_MODE_DEBUG
C++ compiler flags .................... -m64 -O0 -ftrapv -O1 -g3 -g3 -std=c++20 ...
...
feature_dbcrash.py | ✓ Passed | 2806 s
✓ 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 change only adjusts Bitcoin Core's continuous integration (CI) test configuration. It tells the test runner to skip one specific test, feature_dbcrash.py, when running with certain command-line options because that test is extremely slow (about 47 minutes in one run). There is no code change that affects how Bitcoin nodes operate, and no security issue is present.

Recommended action

No security action needed. This is a normal CI optimization. Reviewers may want to confirm that feature_dbcrash.py is still exercised in another CI job without the slow debug-build combination.

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.