I mention most of my nits. I think you should in this case too. The test framework option was introduced after the original PR was opened: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/c985eb854cc86deb747caea5283c17cf51b6a983 , so it should have been picked up during some rebase along the line.

It is very quick to fix and there are other review comments that require action from the author anyway.

Nit: (haha) I think a better person to talk to this about is @sedited as an actual project maintainer - I have zero commits to Bitcoin Core and I intend to keep it that way. There are things I want to remain an independent user of!

Personally, (on any other repo, haha) I'd do this:

1. Always mention a nit. Review-done-right is the most expensive part of any codebase, so early flagging is good flagging. ^[1]
2. Always prefix it with nit:, so that it is clear that it's not a showstopper finding.
3. Don't be afraid to make a mistake sometimes, as long as you're willing to make them at-most-once.

In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter.

Per my above rationale, it absolutely does matter. It helps when reviewing now to see the nit, rather than having to context switch into that code later once more and think about it again. Human minds (at least of code reviewers) aren't that different from LLMs in terms of context resets!

Wouldn't it just look like I'm showing off

Just mention it, don't make a show out of it. Stay humble and spend effort.

I'm glad you're here so I can ask you this

Aww.. I'm glad you're here too <3

1. especially on Bitcoin Core where every little nit is not just technical debt, but social debt because it is another PR that needs to be reviewed by 10s of people. Catch 'em while they're hot! ↩