Is there way to get wallet info of opened wallet over rpc call?

I can't find any call for this in getmonero's wallet rpc methods document

Hello. Where can i download stageNet blockchain directly?

and which is smaller? stagenet or testnet

MexicanTakeout96: depends on what info you want, doens't it.

I want wallet file name specifically

I want multiple wallets in a pool to pick from so this feature is needed

You can add arbitrary attributes (so, a name) to wallets, and query them. see get_attribute/set_attribute.

You can't get the filename unless you set it as attribute AFAICT.

But you could also add such a RPC, though if you don't kow which wallet is loaded in the first place, you might have bigger problems.

You can query the main address though, if that's good enough.

And it'll also work if the wallet is moved.

OK thank moo, I'll look more to it tmr. It's getting late here

Anyone who can do a final review of rbrunner's monero-project/monero #8076? We are considering adding it to the Monero binaries we ship with Haveno to improve people's experience with remote nodes, but would be better if it was merged upstream

Why do we name downloads os-arch yet then have a differing folder name of extended_arch-extended_os?

And I get why we'd specify linux-gnu (the extended part). I don't get why we'd specify it when we don't offer any other flavors and we acknowledged that when we decided what to name the archives

I just tried adding Monero to a CI and had to quetion what to do about that because I have os + arch, so I can download the file without issue, yet I can't copy out monerod :/

This is partially me discussing naming scheme history, as I do know x86_64-linux-gnu follows some pattern out there, partially asking for suggestions on how to copy out monerod in a universal way, and partially identifying we've already simplified this for files as advocacy for simplifying it for the folder too

And yes, bad time to ask 3 days after we release 0.18, I know :p

Might have been done by different people :)

kayabaNerve: we rename the archive so that it's easier for users to understand what they are downloading but the folder is named after the compiler toolchain used

selsta: Is there value in preserving full toolchain when we have already accepted this reduction?

It's not like linux-musl would work as-is already. The archives would conflict when they're dropped to just linux

Users won't care. Developers may appreciate the info. Anyone who's actually running musl won't complain when they get a GNU binary which doesn't tell them it's GNU because the status quo lol

ErCiccione: quite sure jberman[m] is still working on reviewing it, they already made a lot of progress

Like if we actually offered musl, or there was a much wider musl user base... I guess this would have value? But as-is, it'd require updating archive scheme. While this forces it's updated... that's not an additional bound. Just further enforcement of it.

kayabanerve[m]: i'm not sure if there is value, it's just how the depends build script names it

ok cool. Thanks selsta 🙂

it's the gitian script that names the archive*

Sure. I'll look for anyone who does think this is valuable and consider a PR to solely use the archive naming scheme.

ErCiccione: selsta is correct, jberman is on it and expects to finish the review any day now. With a bit of luck no additional round of corrections may be necessary.

+1^

nice. Thanks to both