Fixed inconsistencies between code and comments

1) Makes the code for block 44 consistent with  the expected figure in
the comment above it by adding a transaction to the block
2) Fixed comment describing sign_tx() function
This commit is contained in:
sanket1729 2020-06-16 11:15:36 -05:00
parent 6bc1eca01b
commit 511a5af462

View File

@ -591,6 +591,8 @@ class FullBlockTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
b44.hashPrevBlock = self.tip.sha256
b44.nBits = 0x207fffff
b44.vtx.append(coinbase)
tx = self.create_and_sign_transaction(out[14], 1)
b44.vtx.append(tx)
b44.hashMerkleRoot = b44.calc_merkle_root()
b44.solve()
self.tip = b44
@ -678,7 +680,7 @@ class FullBlockTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
# Test block timestamps
# -> b31 (8) -> b33 (9) -> b35 (10) -> b39 (11) -> b42 (12) -> b43 (13) -> b53 (14) -> b55 (15)
# \-> b54 (15)
#
# -> b44 (14)\-> b48 ()
self.move_tip(43)
b53 = self.next_block(53, spend=out[14])
self.send_blocks([b53], False)
@ -1308,7 +1310,7 @@ class FullBlockTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
return create_tx_with_script(spend_tx, n, amount=value, script_pub_key=script)
# sign a transaction, using the key we know about
# this signs input 0 in tx, which is assumed to be spending output n in spend_tx
# this signs input 0 in tx, which is assumed to be spending output 0 in spend_tx
def sign_tx(self, tx, spend_tx):
scriptPubKey = bytearray(spend_tx.vout[0].scriptPubKey)
if (scriptPubKey[0] == OP_TRUE): # an anyone-can-spend