user136404: I'm wondering if there is a workflow that allows developers to share due dilligence of work in a pull request.
To give you some insight, I noticed that if you have a network parameter in your config, like chain=main and then use chain=test in the commandline, you get an error message but It doesn't really tell you what is going on.
This change provides a little bit more verbosity letting the user know where and how the collision is happening.
For example, my change breaks the test
util_tests/util_ChainMerge
You can run it as per the instructions
CHAIN_MERGE_TEST_OUT=results.txt {build_dir}/src/test/test_bitcoin --run_test=util_tests/util_ChainMerge
an excerpt for an example
Current:

 -regtest=1 -noregtest=1 noregtest=1 notestnet=1 || main
 -regtest=1 -noregtest=1 testnet=1 regtest=1 || error: Invalid combination of -regtest, -signet, -testnet and -chain. Can use at most one.

Mine with a more verbose error message:

 -regtest=1 -noregtest=1 noregtest=1 notestnet=1 || main
 -regtest=1 -noregtest=1 testnet=1 regtest=1 || error: Invalid combination of -regtest, -signet, -testnet and -chain. Can use at most one./n Too many network flags being set in the commandline.

So I would like to show that I have a script that compares these results appropriately and shows that my change doesn't break anything.
What is the best way to package helper scripts up to help reviewers? Should I make a separate repo for reference?

user136404: Some answers I got from irc.
luke-jr:
Kaizen_Kintsugi_: if they're short enough, I've seen them inlined in ``` blocks
Earnestly:
Kaizen_Kintsugi_: If I ever have to dump a large log, I use a  element.  So name of log newline ``` ... ``` newline  -> blank lines are important for ```

136404: <p>I'm wondering if there is a workflow that allows developers to share due dilligence of work in a pull request.</p>
<p>To give you some insight, I noticed that if you have a network parameter in your config, like chain=main and then use chain=test in the commandline, you get an error message but It doesn't really tell you what is going on.</p>
<p>This change provides a little bit more verbosity letting the user know where and how the collision is happening.</p>
<p>For example, my change breaks the test
util_tests/util_ChainMerge</p>
<p>You can run it as per the instructions
<code>CHAIN_MERGE_TEST_OUT=results.txt {build_dir}/src/test/test_bitcoin --run_test=util_tests/util_ChainMerge</code></p>
<p>an excerpt for an example</p>
<p>Current:</p>
<pre><code>
 -regtest=1 -noregtest=1 noregtest=1 notestnet=1 || main
 -regtest=1 -noregtest=1 testnet=1 regtest=1 || error: Invalid combination of -regtest, -signet, -testnet and -chain. Can use at most one.
</code></pre>
<p>Mine with a more verbose error message:</p>
<pre><code>
 -regtest=1 -noregtest=1 noregtest=1 notestnet=1 || main
 -regtest=1 -noregtest=1 testnet=1 regtest=1 || error: Invalid combination of -regtest, -signet, -testnet and -chain. Can use at most one./n Too many network flags being set in the commandline.
</code></pre>
<p>So I would like to show that I have a script that compares these results appropriately and shows that my change doesn't break anything.</p>
<p>What is the best way to package helper scripts up to help reviewers? Should I make a separate repo for reference?</p>
 136404: <p>Some answers I got from irc.</p>
<p>luke-jr:
Kaizen_Kintsugi_: if they're short enough, I've seen them inlined in ``` blocks</p>
<p>Earnestly:
Kaizen_Kintsugi_: If I ever have to dump a large log, I use a  element.  So name of log <em>newline</em> ``` ... ``` <em>newline</em>  -&gt; blank lines are important for ```</p>
