fabc2615af test: Use extra_port() helper in feature_bind_extra.py (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
This is a refactor for self-validating and self-documenting code.
Currently, the test assumes that extra ports are available and just increments them without checking. However, this may not be the case when the test is modified to use more ports. In this case, the tests may fail intermittently and the failure is hard to debug.
Fix this confusion, by calling `p2p_port` each time. This ensures the required `assert n <= MAX_NODES` is checked each time.
Closes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33250
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK fabc2615af
janb84:
crACK fabc2615af
w0xlt:
ACK fabc2615af
Tree-SHA512: 1eff00be7f43104ae8a66e79fbf64075ec22bb20f392ac1e4c8a7dd694d4f1760aa44ea54ab7b1f2b947ab018851ab3c10d3c717714c0bee4d8d24617594c2bb
Currently, if the user inadvertently starts the node with duplicate bind options,
such as `-bind=0.0.0.0 -bind=0.0.0.0`, it will cause a fatal error with the
misleading message "Bitcoin Core is probably already running".
This commit adds early validation to detect duplicate bindings across all binding
configurations (-bind, -whitebind, and onion bindings) before attempting to bind.
When duplicates are detected, the node terminates with a clear, specific error
message: "Duplicate binding configuration for address <addr>. Please check your
-bind, -bind=...=onion and -whitebind settings."
The validation catches duplicates both within the same option type (e.g.,
`-bind=X -bind=X`) and across different types (e.g., `-bind=X -whitebind=Y@X`),
helping users identify and fix configuration mistakes.
If only `-bind=addr:port` is given (without `-bind=...=onion`) then we
would bind to `addr:port` _and_ to `127.0.0.1:8334` in addition which
may be unexpected, assuming the semantic of `-bind=addr:port` is
"bind _only_ to `addr:port`".
Change the above to not do the additional bind: if only
`-bind=addr:port` is given (without `-bind=...=onion`) then bind to
`addr:port` (only). If we are creating a Tor hidden service then use
`addr:port` as target (same behavior as before
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19991).
This allows disabling binding on the onion port.
Fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22726
Rather than re-implementing these checks, we can use this test
framework's helper (introduced in commit
c934087b62, PR #24358) called in a test's
`skip_test_if_missing_module` method instead.
The previous diff touched most files in ./test/, so bump the headers to
avoid having to touch them again for a bump later.
-BEGIN VERIFY SCRIPT-
./contrib/devtools/copyright_header.py update ./test/
-END VERIFY SCRIPT-
The semantic of `-bind` is to restrict the binding only to some address.
If not specified, then the user does not care and we bind to `0.0.0.0`.
If specified then we should honor the restriction and bind only to the
specified address.
Before this change, if no `-bind` is given then we would bind to
`0.0.0.0:8333` and to `127.0.0.1:8334` (incoming Tor) which is ok -
the user does not care to restrict the binding.
However, if only `-bind=addr:port=onion` is given (without ordinary
`-bind=`) then we would bind to `addr:port` _and_ to `0.0.0.0:8333` in
addition.
Change the above to not do the additional bind: if only
`-bind=addr:port=onion` is given (without ordinary `-bind=`) then bind
to `addr:port` (only) and consider incoming connections to that as Tor
and do not advertise it. I.e. a Tor-only node.
