QA: Expect PACKAGE_NAME rather than constant "Bitcoin Core"

[luke-jr]

Followup to #29144

[DrahtBot]

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Code Coverage

For detailed information about the code coverage, see the test coverage report.

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

Type	Reviewers
ACK	kevkevinpal, tdb3

If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.

[kevkevinpal]

ACK 197b540

we're doing this in these files aswell so seems fine to me

test/functional/wallet_multiwallet.py 
test/functional/tool_wallet.py 
test/functional/interface_bitcoin_cli.py 
test/functional/feature_filelock.py

[kevkevinpal]

I see we're doing something similar in ./test/functional/wallet_backwards_compatibility.py

node_v17.assert_start_raises_init_error(["-wallet=w3"], "Error: Error loading w3: Wallet requires newer version of Bitcoin Core")

and

node_v16.assert_start_raises_init_error([f"-wallet={wallet_name}"], f"Error: Error loading {wallet_name}: Wallet requires newer version of Bitcoin Core")

not sure if you want to update here aswell in this PR

[tdb3]

ACK 197b540
grepped for other instances of Bitcoin Core in test/functional/ and didn't see any beyond what @kevkevinpal identified.

[fanquake]

not sure if you want to update here aswell in this PR

@luke-jr can you update this PR to include the additional changes.

[maflcko]

previous releaseas are hardcoded to be Bitcoin Core, so no need to change that

I wonder if one CI task should modify the PACKAGE_NAME to be something else, e.g. Bitcoin Core CI-build?

[fanquake]

previous releaseas are hardcoded to be Bitcoin Core, so need to change that

It can be changed just for consistency, and to prevent similar issues in future when devs copy-paste code.

[luke-jr]

It can be changed just for consistency, and to prevent similar issues in future when devs copy-paste code.

Changing it would break that test.

I don't think there's anything more to do here at the moment. (CI is a good idea, but seems suited to a different PR)

[fanquake]

Changing it would break that test.

Not in our repository though? In any case, this could be revisited if someone follows up with a CI change.