This commit adds tests to ensure that old fee_estimates.dat files
are not read and that fee_estimates are periodically flushed to the
fee_estimates.dat file.
Additionaly it tests the -regtestonly option -acceptstalefeeestimates.
Github-Pull: #27622
Rebased-From: d2b39e09bc6a5982fc5cf4b538b7fdb0e3cae576
`evhttp_uri_parse` can return a nullptr, for example when the URI
contains invalid characters (e.g. "%").
`GetQueryParameterFromUri` passes the output of `evhttp_uri_parse`
straight into `evhttp_uri_get_query`, which means that anyone calling
a REST endpoint in which query parameters are used (e.g. `rest_headers`)
can cause a segfault.
This bugfix is designed to be minimal and without additional behaviour change.
Github-Pull: #27468
Rebased-From: 11422cc5720c8d73a87600de8fe8abb156db80dc
Since migration reloads the wallet, the wallet will always be locked
unless the passphrase is given. migratewallet can now take the
passphrase in order to unlock the wallet for migration.
Github-Pull: #26595
Rebased-From: 7fd125b27d48e410509f3009e2eb9fa5cd6729dd
To be eligible for fee-bumping, a transaction must not have any
of its outputs (eg - change) spent in other unconfirmed transactions
in the wallet. However, this check should not apply to abandoned
transactions.
A new test case is added to cover this case.
Github-Pull: #26675
Rebased-From: f9ce0eadf4eb58d1e2207c27fabe69a5642482e7
This exercises the bug inside CoinsResult::Erase that
ends up on (1) a wallet crash or (2) a created and
broadcasted tx that contains a reduced recipient's amount.
This is covered by making the wallet selects the preset
inputs twice during the coin selection process.
Making the wallet think that the selection process result covers
the entire tx target when it does not. It's actually creating
a tx that sends more coins than what inputs are covering for.
Which, combined with the SFFO option, makes the wallet
incorrectly reduce the recipient's amount by the difference
between the original target and the wrongly counted inputs.
Which means, a created and relayed tx sending less coins to
the destination than what the user inputted.
Github-Pull: #26560
Rebased-From: cf793846978a8783c23b66ba6b4f3f30e83ff3eb
Due to an oversight, we cannot currently migrate encrypted wallets,
regardless of whether they are unlocked. Migrating such wallets will
trigger an error, and result in the cleanup being run. This conveniently
allows us to check some parts of the cleanup code.
Github-Pull: #26594
Rebased-From: 88afc73ae0c67a4482ecd3d77eb2a8fd2673f82d
Test that the same keys included in other descriptors will still be able
to sign a PSBT that requires those keys.
Github-Pull: #26418
Rebased-From: 0de30ed509a9969cb254e00097671625c9e107d2
To avoid a wallet potentially being able to sign a transaction using
keys from descriptors imported in previous tests, make new wallets for
each test case rather than sharing them.
Github-Pull: #26418
Rebased-From: 6efcdf6b7f6daa83b5937aa630fce358fdaed333
This test would cause a crash in bitcoind (see #26274) if the fix given in the
previous commit was not applied.
Github-Pull: #26275
Rebased-From: 9153ff3e274953ea0d92d53ddab4c72deeace1b1
667401a8557f94a3e0b7ec17096077dd8985eac7 [test] only run feature_rbf.py once (glozow)
Pull request description:
There is no need to run this test twice with --descriptors and --legacy-wallet, as it doesn't use the wallet.
ACKs for top commit:
aureleoules:
ACK 667401a8557f94a3e0b7ec17096077dd8985eac7.
theStack:
ACK 667401a8557f94a3e0b7ec17096077dd8985eac7
brunoerg:
ACK 667401a8557f94a3e0b7ec17096077dd8985eac7
Tree-SHA512: 339213159fac29ebc5678461fae41645aed57877d5525e8ca4755890b869a17ae0bea3f590114769c84b71a7df20c59c9530ab8b327912151c82ec58022f7e71
cc434cbf583ec8d1b0f3aa504417231fdc81f33a wallet: fix sendall creates tx that fails tx-size check (kouloumos)
Pull request description:
Fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26011
The `sendall` RPC doesn't use `CreateTransactionInternal` as the rest of
the wallet RPCs. [This has already been discussed in the original PR](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24118#issuecomment-1029462114).
By not going through that path, it never checks the transaction's weight
against the maximum tx weight for transactions we're willing to relay.
447f50e4ae/src/wallet/spend.cpp (L1013-L1018)
This PR adds a check for tx-size as well as test coverage for that case.
_Note: It seems that the test takes a bit of time on slower machines,
I'm not sure if dropping it might be for the better._
ACKs for top commit:
glozow:
re ACK cc434cb via range-diff. Changes were addressing https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26024#discussion_r971325299 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26024#discussion_r970651614.
achow101:
ACK cc434cbf583ec8d1b0f3aa504417231fdc81f33a
w0xlt:
reACK cc434cbf58
Tree-SHA512: 64a1d8f2c737b39f3ccee90689eda1dd9c1b65f11b2c7bc0ec8bfe72f0202ce90ab4033bb0ecfc6080af8c947575059588a00938fe48e7fd553f7fb5ee03b3cc
The `sendall` RPC doesn't use `CreateTransactionInternal`as the rest of
the wallet RPCs and it never checks against the tx-size mempool limit.
Add a check for tx-size as well as test coverage for that case.
6f8e3818af7585b961039bf0c768be2e4ee44e0f sendall: check if the maxtxfee has been exceeded (ishaanam)
Pull request description:
Previously the `sendall` RPC didn't check whether the fees of the transaction it creates exceed the set `maxtxfee`. This PR adds this check to `sendall` and a test case for it.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 6f8e3818af7585b961039bf0c768be2e4ee44e0f
Xekyo:
ACK 6f8e3818af7585b961039bf0c768be2e4ee44e0f
glozow:
Concept ACK 6f8e3818af7585b961039bf0c768be2e4ee44e0f. The high feerate is unlikely but sendall should respect the existing wallet options.
Tree-SHA512: 6ef0961937091293d49be16f17e4451cff3159d901c0c7c6e508883999dfe0c20ed4d7126bf74bfea8150d4c1eef961a45f0c28ef64562e6cb817fede2319f1a
b00fc44ca5cb938f18d31cde7feb4e1c968dcc2f test: add coverage for 'add_inputs' dynamic default value (furszy)
ddbcfdf3d050061f4e8979a0e2bb63bba5a43c47 RPC: bugfix, 'add_inputs' default value is true unless 'inputs' are provided (furszy)
Pull request description:
This bugfix was meant to be in #25685, but decoupled it to try to make it part of 24.0 release.
It's a truly misleading functionality.
This PR doesn't change behavior in any way. Just fixes two invalid RPC help messages and adds test
coverage for the current behavior.
#### Description
In both RPC commands `send()` and `walletcreatefundedpsbt` the help message says
that `add_inputs` default value is false when it's actually dynamically set by the following statement:
```c++
coin_control.m_allow_other_inputs = rawTx.vin.size() == 0;
```
Which means that, by default, `add_inputs` is true unless there is any pre-set input, in which
case, the default is false.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK b00fc44ca5cb938f18d31cde7feb4e1c968dcc2f
S3RK:
ACK b00fc44ca5cb938f18d31cde7feb4e1c968dcc2f
Tree-SHA512: 5c68a40d81c994e0ab6de0817db69c4d3dea3a9a64a60362531bf583b7a4c37d524b740905a3f3a89cdbf221913ff5b504746625adb8622788aea93a35bbcd40
Covered cases for send() and walletcreatefundedpsbt() RPC commands:
1. Default add_inputs value with no preset inputs (add_inputs=true):
Expect: automatically add coins from the wallet to the tx.
2. Default add_inputs value with preset inputs (add_inputs=false):
Expect: disallow automatic coin selection.
3. Explicit add_inputs=true and preset inputs (with preset inputs not-covering the target amount).
Expect: include inputs from the wallet.
4. Explicit add_inputs=true and preset inputs (with preset inputs covering the target amount).
Expect: only preset inputs are used.
5. Explicit add_inputs=true, no preset inputs (same as (1) but with an explicit set):
Expect: include inputs from the wallet.
00eeb31c7660e2c28f189f77a6905dee946ef408 scripted-diff: rename CChainState -> Chainstate (James O'Beirne)
Pull request description:
Alright alright alright, I know: we hate refactors. We especially hate cosmetic refactors.
Nobody knows better than I that changing broad swaths of code out from under our already-abused collaborators, only to send a cascade of rebase bankruptcies, is annoying at best and sadistic at worst. And for a rename! The indignation!
But just for a second, imagine yourself. Programming `bitcoin/bitcoin`, on a sandy beach beneath a lapis lazuli sky. You go to type the name of what is probably the most commonly used data structure in the codebase, and you *only hit shift once*.
What could you do in such a world? You could do anything. [The only limit is yourself.](https://zombo.com/)
---
So maybe you like the idea of this patch but really don't want to deal with rebasing. You're in luck!
Here're the commands that will bail you out of rebase bankruptcy:
```sh
git rebase -i $(git merge-base HEAD master) \
-x 'sed -i "s/CChainState/Chainstate/g" $(git ls-files | grep -E ".*\.(py|cpp|h)$") && git commit --amend --no-edit'
# <commit changed?>
git add -u && git rebase --continue
```
---
~~Anyway I'm not sure how serious I am about this, but I figured it was worth proposing.~~ I have decided I am very serious about this.
Maybe we can have nice things every once in a while?
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
cr ACK 00eeb31c7660e2c28f189f77a6905dee946ef408
hebasto:
ACK 00eeb31c7660e2c28f189f77a6905dee946ef408
glozow:
ACK 00eeb31c7660e2c28f189f77a6905dee946ef408, thanks for being the one to propose this
w0xlt:
ACK 00eeb31c76
Tree-SHA512: b828a99780614a9b74f7a9c347ce0687de6f8d75232840f5ffc26e02bbb25a3b1f5f9deabbe44f82ada01459586ee8452a3ee2da05d1b3c48558c8df6f49e1b1
2d0b4e4ff66e60c85f86c526a53f8fb242ebb7d0 init: allow startup with -onlynet=onion -listenonion=1 (Vasil Dimov)
Pull request description:
It does not make sense to specify `-onlynet=onion` without providing a
Tor proxy (even if other `-onlynet=...` are given). This is checked
during startup. However, it was forgotten that a Tor proxy can also be
retrieved from "Tor control" to which we connect if `-listenonion=1`.
So, the full Tor proxy retrieval logic is:
1. get it from `-onion`
2. get it from `-proxy`
3. if `-listenonion=1`, then connect to "Tor control" and get the proxy
from there (was forgotten before this change)
Fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24980
ACKs for top commit:
mzumsande:
Tested ACK 2d0b4e4ff66e60c85f86c526a53f8fb242ebb7d0
MarcoFalke:
ACK 2d0b4e4ff66e60c85f86c526a53f8fb242ebb7d0 🕸
Tree-SHA512: d1d18e07a8a40a47b7f00c31cb291a3d3a9b24eeb28c5e4720d5df4997f488583a3a010d46902b4b600d2ed1136a368e1051c133847ae165e0748b8167603dc3
We were throwing two different errors for the same problematic:
* "Expected type {expected], got {type}" --> RPCTypeCheckArgument()
* "JSON value of type {type} is not of expected type {expected}" --> UniValue::checkType()
4f67336f1105b7c34a9e8cdafa603edc1d899fb9 test: verify best blockhash after invalidating an unknown block (brunoerg)
Pull request description:
Fixes#26051
Verify the best blockhash is the same after invalidating an unknown block, not the whole `getchaintip` response.
ACKs for top commit:
instagibbs:
ACK 4f67336f1105b7c34a9e8cdafa603edc1d899fb9
Tree-SHA512: 2d71743c1d3a317ef7b750f88437df71d1aed2728d9edac8b763a343406e168b97865ab25ec4c89caf09d002e076458376618cbd0845496375f7179633c88af9
2186608172b0e6c3a9907e06fed27dfd927abd45 test: apply fixed feerate to avoid variable dynamic fees (stickies-v)
Pull request description:
Without specifying a feerate, we let the wallet decide on an appropriate feerate, which can be influenced by various factors
such as what's in the mempool. Since wallet_groups.py fails when feerates are unstable, we should use a fixed feerate across all nodes. The assumed feerate was 20 sats/vbyte, so this PR adopts that.
Closes#25940. I'm not 100% sure, but I think the increased tx relay speed introduced by #25865 caused the transactions to more quickly and often enter the other nodes' mempools, affecting their feerate calculation done in [`wallet:GetMinimumFeeRate()`](ea67232cdb/src/wallet/fees.cpp (L68-L72)) and thus deviating slightly from the expected 20 sats/vbyte.
Ran `wallet_groups.py` over 400 times without failure.
ACKs for top commit:
aureleoules:
ACK 2186608172b0e6c3a9907e06fed27dfd927abd45.
glozow:
Approach ACK 2186608172b0e6c3a9907e06fed27dfd927abd45
Tree-SHA512: 0ea467a67747e6f27369ccd0adacfb21cc36ef0ae728fb28b8ea18e409aab5bd3ede559d6cebb82da0b9703c0c8b2709d686feb3ae009ddf525aa253f44d5816
4b1d5a10537ab48e3457606ba1cf2ae26a1cb2b2 test: invalidating an unknown block throws an error (brunoerg)
Pull request description:
While playing with `invalidateblock`, I unintentionally tried to invalidate an unknown block and it threw an error. Looking at the tests I just realized there is no test coverage for this case. This PR adds it.
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: 25286ead809b3ad022e759127ef3134b271fbe76cb7b50ec2b0c7e2409da8d1b01dc5e80afe73e4564cc9c9c03487a1fe772aea3456988552d2f9c8fb34c730b
