faf70cc9941ce2b0ce4fd48ecfdbe28194adb8ba Remove wallet::ParseISO8601DateTime, use ParseISO8601DateTime instead (MarcoFalke)
2222aecd5f8059785e655da7b7e3fcc59204245c util: Implement ParseISO8601DateTime based on C++20 (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
`boost::posix_time` in `ParseISO8601DateTime` has many issues:
* It parses random strings that are clearly invalid and returns a time value for them, see [1] below.
* None of the separators `-`, or `:`, or `T`, or `Z` are validated.
* It may crash when running under a hardened C++ library, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28917.
* It has been unmaintained for years, so reporting or fixing any issues will most likely be useless.
* It pulls in a third-party dependency, when the functionality is already included in vanilla C++20.
Fix all issues by replacing it with a simple helper function written in C++20.
Fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28917.
[1] The following patch passes on current master:
```diff
diff --git a/src/wallet/test/rpc_util_tests.cpp b/src/wallet/test/rpc_util_tests.cpp
index 32f6f5ab46..c1c94c7116 100644
--- a/src/wallet/test/rpc_util_tests.cpp
+++ b/src/wallet/test/rpc_util_tests.cpp
@@ -12,6 +12,14 @@ BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE(wallet_util_tests)
BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(util_ParseISO8601DateTime)
{
+ BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(ParseISO8601DateTime("964296"), 242118028800);
+ BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(ParseISO8601DateTime("244622"), 15023836800);
+ BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(ParseISO8601DateTime("+INfINITy"), 9223372036854);
+ BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(ParseISO8601DateTime("7000802 01"), 158734166400);
+ BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(ParseISO8601DateTime("7469-2 +INfINITy"), 9223372036854);
+ BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(ParseISO8601DateTime("maXimum-datE-time"), 253402300799);
+ BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(ParseISO8601DateTime("577737 114maXimum-datE-time"), 253402300799);
+
BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(ParseISO8601DateTime("1970-01-01T00:00:00Z"), 0);
BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(ParseISO8601DateTime("1960-01-01T00:00:00Z"), 0);
BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(ParseISO8601DateTime("2000-01-01T00:00:01Z"), 946684801);
```
ACKs for top commit:
hebasto:
ACK faf70cc9941ce2b0ce4fd48ecfdbe28194adb8ba, I have reviewed the code and it looks OK.
dergoegge:
utACK faf70cc9941ce2b0ce4fd48ecfdbe28194adb8ba
Tree-SHA512: 9dd745a356d04acf6200e13a6af52c51a9e2a0eeccea110093ce5da147b3c669c0eda918e46db0164c081a78c8feae3fe557a4759bea18449a8ff2d090095931
32fc59796f74a2941772b5ec2755b1319132cd9c rpc: Allow single transaction through submitpackage (glozow)
Pull request description:
There's no particular reason to restrict single transaction submissions with submitpackage. This change relaxes the RPC checks as enables the `AcceptPackage` flow to accept packages of a single transaction.
Resolves#31085
ACKs for top commit:
naumenkogs:
ACK 32fc59796f
achow101:
ACK 32fc59796f74a2941772b5ec2755b1319132cd9c
glozow:
ACK 32fc59796f74a2941772b5ec2755b1319132cd9c
Tree-SHA512: ffed353bfdca610ffcfd53b40b76da05ffc26df6bac4b0421492e067bede930380e03399d2e2d1d17f0e88fb91cd8eb376e3aabebbabcc724590bf068d09807c
73db95c65c1d372822166045ca8b9f173d5fd883 kernel: Make bitcoin-chainstate's block validation mirror submitblock's (TheCharlatan)
bb53ce9bdae2f02d7bd95cf5d8ca4ccf5136466a tests: Add functional test for submitting a previously pruned block (Greg Sanders)
1f7fc738255205a64374686aca9a4c53089360f1 rpc: Remove submitblock duplicate pre-check (TheCharlatan)
e62a8abd7df21795dcd173773f689b6d4c8feab6 rpc: Remove submitblock invalid-duplicate precheck (TheCharlatan)
36dbebafb9b54764005e6fffa7ad28d4cadfe5e4 rpc: Remove submitblock coinbase pre-check (TheCharlatan)
Pull request description:
With the introduction of a mining ipc interface and the potential future introduction of a kernel library API it becomes increasingly important to offer common behaviour between them. An example of this is ProcessNewBlock, which is used by ipc, rpc, net_processing and (potentially) the kernel library. Having divergent behaviour on suggested pre-checks and checks for these functions is confusing to both developers and users and is a maintenance burden.
The rpc interface for ProcessNewBlock (submitblock) currently pre-checks if the block has a coinbase transaction and whether it has been processed before. While the current example binary for how to use the kernel library, bitcoin-chainstate, imitates these checks, the other interfaces do not.
The coinbase check is repeated again early during ProcessNewBlock. Pre-checking it may also shadow more fundamental problems with a block. In most cases the block header is checked first, before validating the transactions. Checking the coinbase first therefore masks potential issues with the header. Fix this by removing the pre-check.
Similary the duplicate checks are repeated early in the contextual checks of ProcessNewBlock. If duplicate blocks are detected much of their validation is skipped. Depending on the constitution of the block, validating the merkle root of the block is part of the more intensive workload when validating a block. This could be an argument for moving the pre-checks into block processing. In net_processing this would have a smaller effect however, since the block mutation check, which also validates the merkle root, is done before.
Testing spamming a node with valid, but duplicate unrequested blocks seems to exhaust a CPU thread, but does not seem to significantly impact keeping up with the tip. The benefits of adding these checks to net_processing are questionable, especially since there are other ways to trigger the more CPU-intensive checks without submitting a duplicate block. Since these DOS concerns apply even less to the RPC interface, which does not have banning mechanics built in, remove them too.
Finally, also remove the pre-checks from `bitcoin-chainstate.cpp`.
---
This PR is part of the [libbitcoinkernel project](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27587).
ACKs for top commit:
Sjors:
re-utACK 73db95c65c1d372822166045ca8b9f173d5fd883
achow101:
ACK 73db95c65c1d372822166045ca8b9f173d5fd883
instagibbs:
ACK 73db95c65c1d372822166045ca8b9f173d5fd883
mzumsande:
ACK 73db95c65c1d372822166045ca8b9f173d5fd883
Tree-SHA512: 2d02e851cf402ecf6a1968c058df3576aac407e200cbf922a1a6391b7f97b4f42c6d9f6b0a78b9d1af0a6d40bdd529a7b11a1e6d88885bd7b8b090f6d1411861
This ensures we don't needlessly start the node, and reduces implicit dependencies between test functions.
test_seed_peers() - Move assert calling RPC to verify correct chain after our own function actually started the node.
This makes the debug output mostly the same for -par=1 and parallel validation runs. Of course,
parallel validation is non-deterministic in what error it may encounter first if there are
multiple issues. Also, the way certain script-related and non-script-related checks are
performed differs between the two modes still, which may result in discrepancies.
409d0d629378c3e23388ed31516376ad1ae536b5 test: enable running individual independent functional test methods (ismaelsadeeq)
Pull request description:
- Some test methods in the functional test framework are independent and do not require any prior context or setup in `run_test`.
- This commit adds a new option for running these specific methods within a test file, allowing them to be executed individually without running the entire test suite.
- Using this option reduces the time you need to wait before the test you are interested in starts executing.
- The functionality added by this PR can be achieved manually by commenting out code, but having a pragmatic option to do this is more convenient.
Note: Running test methods that require arguments or context will fail.
**Example Usage**:
```zsh
build/test/functional/feature_reindex.py --test_methods continue_reindex_after_shutdown
```
```zsh
build/test/functional/feature_config_args.py --test_methods test_log_buffer test_args_log test_connect_with_seednode
```
ACKs for top commit:
maflcko:
review ACK 409d0d629378c3e23388ed31516376ad1ae536b5
rkrux:
reACK 409d0d629378c3e23388ed31516376ad1ae536b5
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 409d0d629378c3e23388ed31516376ad1ae536b5. This seems like a good step towards making it easy to run independent tests quickly. I think ideally there would be some naming convention or @ annotation added to test methods that can run independently, so the test framework could provide more functionality like being able to list test methods, being able to show command lines to quickly reproduce problems when tests fails, and calling test methods automatically instead of requiring individual tests to call them. But these ideas are all compatible with the new `--test_methods` option
Tree-SHA512: b0daac7c3b322e6fd9b946962335d8279e8cb004ff76f502c8d597b9c4b0073840945be198a79d44c5aaa64bda421429829d5c84ceeb8c6139eb6ed079a35878
62f6d9e1a48e3b63c504996e914075cacfdcaedc test: simple ordering optimization to reduce runtime (tdb3)
Pull request description:
Noticed in #31371 that the position of `mempool_ephemeral_dust` within `BASE_SCRIPTS` was lengthening total test runtime. Instead of moving only that test, looked for others to move to reduce runtime.
This is a quick optimization that was found to reduce overall functional test runtime of up to around 20% (depending on jobs and machine characteristics). Since it seems like test ordering could be done in many different ways, with many variables, and bike shedding could creep in, a relatively straightforward approach was taken for now that minimized changes to test_runner.
ACKs for top commit:
maflcko:
lgtm ACK 62f6d9e1a48e3b63c504996e914075cacfdcaedc
TheCharlatan:
ACK 62f6d9e1a48e3b63c504996e914075cacfdcaedc
Tree-SHA512: 6f93fbe4de3fce202383d9f84aa0e96961af3de3c02b8cab73589339d701f32c5e1b57a191eeebf4b06b5cd7a82617f63f24110732940be1a5a4d9237813a570
faa16ed4b9edd126b5a2b0c13994f18273096efc test: Add missing node.setmocktime(self.mocktime) to p2p_ibd_stalling.py (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
This was forgotten by myself in commit fa5b58ea01fac1adb6336b8b6b5217193295c695.
This time, there is a diff to test, which fails on current master and passes with this pull request.
```diff
diff --git a/src/net_processing.cpp b/src/net_processing.cpp
index e503a68382..16438ebd08 100644
--- a/src/net_processing.cpp
+++ b/src/net_processing.cpp
@@ -112,9 +112,9 @@ static_assert(MAX_BLOCKTXN_DEPTH <= MIN_BLOCKS_TO_KEEP, "MAX_BLOCKTXN_DEPTH too
* want to make this a per-peer adaptive value at some point. */
static const unsigned int BLOCK_DOWNLOAD_WINDOW = 1024;
/** Block download timeout base, expressed in multiples of the block interval (i.e. 10 min) */
-static constexpr double BLOCK_DOWNLOAD_TIMEOUT_BASE = 1;
+static constexpr double BLOCK_DOWNLOAD_TIMEOUT_BASE = .05; // 30 sec
/** Additional block download timeout per parallel downloading peer (i.e. 5 min) */
-static constexpr double BLOCK_DOWNLOAD_TIMEOUT_PER_PEER = 0.5;
+static constexpr double BLOCK_DOWNLOAD_TIMEOUT_PER_PEER = 0.;
/** Maximum number of headers to announce when relaying blocks with headers message.*/
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCKS_TO_ANNOUNCE = 8;
/** Minimum blocks required to signal NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED */
diff --git a/test/functional/p2p_ibd_stalling.py b/test/functional/p2p_ibd_stalling.py
index fa07873929..f8cdd8998c 100755
--- a/test/functional/p2p_ibd_stalling.py
+++ b/test/functional/p2p_ibd_stalling.py
@@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ class P2PIBDStallingTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
# Need to wait until 1023 blocks are received - the magic total bytes number is a workaround in lack of an rpc
# returning the number of downloaded (but not connected) blocks.
bytes_recv = 172761 if not self.options.v2transport else 169692
+ time.sleep(31);
self.wait_until(lambda: self.total_bytes_recv_for_blocks() == bytes_recv)
self.all_sync_send_with_ping(peers)
ACKs for top commit:
brunoerg:
ACK faa16ed4b9edd126b5a2b0c13994f18273096efc
Tree-SHA512: 5a670e2dcf828ac83b721a3e20d897744cca50080b0583a8460a0d0c7bf2c2c988cf7e35f688dde6a3349f1c21cc83a16ea5242ed06a59d59a04130416690737
160799d9135528dbdea40690f0bb0d56c6c4803a test: refactor: introduce `create_ephemeral_dust_package` helper (Sebastian Falbesoner)
61e18dec306cfb8bc17ad2133ea1867b78000c62 doc: ephemeral policy: add missing closing double quote (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This small PR contains ephemeral dust follow-ups mentioned in #30329 that were not tackled in the first follow-up PR #31279:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1828577696https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1825279952
Happy to add more if I missed some or anyone has concrete commits to add.
ACKs for top commit:
rkrux:
tACK 160799d9135528dbdea40690f0bb0d56c6c4803a
instagibbs:
ACK 160799d9135528dbdea40690f0bb0d56c6c4803a
tdb3:
Code review ACK 160799d9135528dbdea40690f0bb0d56c6c4803a
Tree-SHA512: e9a80c6733f1e7fe9e834d81b404f6e8ef7a61fe986f61b3dcdbda1a0bc547145fc279ec02f54361df56cb4e62a6fedaa0f3991c6e084c3a703ed1b1bfbdbe4e
37a5c5d83664c31d83fc649d3c8c858bd5f10f21 doc: update descriptors.md for getdescriptoractivity (James O'Beirne)
ee3ce6a4f4d35afe7fcab16eff419a6788b02170 test: rpc: add no address case for getdescriptoractivity (James O'Beirne)
811f76f3a511d20750046319b390e225a1151caa rpc: add getdescriptoractivity (James O'Beirne)
25fe087de59e967ce968d35ed77138325eb9a9fa rpc: move-only: move ScriptPubKeyDoc to utils (James O'Beirne)
Pull request description:
The RPC command `scanblocks` provides a useful way to get a set of blockhashes that have activity relevant to a set of descriptors (`relevant_blocks`). However actually extracting the activity from those blocks is left as an exercise to the end user.
This process involves not only generating the (potentially ranged) set of scripts for the descriptor set on the client side (maybe via `deriveaddresses`), but then the user must retrieve each block's contents one-by-one using `getblock <hash>`, which is transmitted over a network link. And that's all before they perform the actual search over block content. There's even more work required to incorporate unconfirmed transactions.
This PR introduces an RPC `getdescriptoractivity` that [dovetails](https://bitcoin-irc.chaincode.com/bitcoin-core-dev/2024-08-16#1046393;) with `scanblocks` output, handling the process described above. Users specify the blockhashes (perhaps from `relevant_blocks`) and a set of descriptors; they are then given all spend/receive activity in that set of blocks.
This is a very useful tool when implementing lightweight wallets that want neither to require a third-party indexer like electrs, nor the overhead of creating and managing watch-only wallets in Core. This allows Core to be more easily used in a "stateless" manner by wallets, with potentially many nodes interchangeably acting as backends.
### Example usage
```
% ./src/bitcoin-cli scanblocks start \
'["addr(bc1p0cp0vyag6snlta2l7c4am3rue7eef9f72l7uhx52m4v27vfydx9s8tfs7t)"]' \
857263
{
"from_height": 857263,
"to_height": 858263,
"relevant_blocks": [
"00000000000000000002bc5cc78f5b0913a5230a8f4b0d5060bc9a60900a5a88",
"00000000000000000001c5291ed6a40c06d3db5c8fb738567654b24a14b24ecb"
],
"completed": true
}
% ./src/bitcoin-cli getdescriptoractivity \
'["00000000000000000002bc5cc78f5b0913a5230a8f4b0d5060bc9a60900a5a88", "00000000000000000001c5291ed6a40c06d3db5c8fb738567654b24a14b24ecb"]' \
'["addr(bc1p0cp0vyag6snlta2l7c4am3rue7eef9f72l7uhx52m4v27vfydx9s8tfs7t)"]'
{
"activity": [
{
"type": "receive",
"amount": 0.00002900,
"blockhash": "00000000000000000002bc5cc78f5b0913a5230a8f4b0d5060bc9a60900a5a88",
"height": 857907,
"txid": "c9d34f202c1f66d80cae76f305350f5fdde910b97cf6ae6bf79f5bcf2a337d06",
"vout": 254,
"output_spk": {
"asm": "1 7e02f613a8d427f5f55ff62bddc47ccfb394953e57fdcb9a8add58af3124698b",
"desc": "rawtr(7e02f613a8d427f5f55ff62bddc47ccfb394953e57fdcb9a8add58af3124698b)#yewcd80j",
"hex": "51207e02f613a8d427f5f55ff62bddc47ccfb394953e57fdcb9a8add58af3124698b",
"address": "bc1p0cp0vyag6snlta2l7c4am3rue7eef9f72l7uhx52m4v27vfydx9s8tfs7t",
"type": "witness_v1_taproot"
}
},
{
"type": "spend",
"amount": 0.00002900,
"blockhash": "00000000000000000001c5291ed6a40c06d3db5c8fb738567654b24a14b24ecb",
"height": 858260,
"spend_txid": "7f61d1b248d4ee46376f9c6df272f63fbb0c17039381fb23ca5d90473b823c36",
"spend_vin": 0,
"prevout_txid": "c9d34f202c1f66d80cae76f305350f5fdde910b97cf6ae6bf79f5bcf2a337d06",
"prevout_vout": 254,
"prevout_spk": {
"asm": "1 7e02f613a8d427f5f55ff62bddc47ccfb394953e57fdcb9a8add58af3124698b",
"desc": "rawtr(7e02f613a8d427f5f55ff62bddc47ccfb394953e57fdcb9a8add58af3124698b)#yewcd80j",
"hex": "51207e02f613a8d427f5f55ff62bddc47ccfb394953e57fdcb9a8add58af3124698b",
"address": "bc1p0cp0vyag6snlta2l7c4am3rue7eef9f72l7uhx52m4v27vfydx9s8tfs7t",
"type": "witness_v1_taproot"
}
}
]
}
```
ACKs for top commit:
instagibbs:
reACK 37a5c5d83664c31d83fc649d3c8c858bd5f10f21
achow101:
ACK 37a5c5d83664c31d83fc649d3c8c858bd5f10f21
tdb3:
Code review and light retest ACK 37a5c5d83664c31d83fc649d3c8c858bd5f10f21
rkrux:
re-ACK 37a5c5d83664c31d83fc649d3c8c858bd5f10f21
Tree-SHA512: 04aa51e329c6c2ed72464b9886281d5ebd7511a8a8e184ea81249033a4dad535a12829b1010afc2da79b344ea8b5ab8ed47e426d0bf2eb78ab395d20b1da8dbb
ee1128ead846698db5e5633f193883837f2fbc64 doc: update stack-clash-protection comment re mingw-w64 (fanquake)
bf47448f152316145d9abb9b8abc3b564194fe46 test: drop check for Windows < 10 (fanquake)
35b898c47f8af6807c4a5f404af165c663c81a99 release: target Windows 10 or later (fanquake)
398754e70bc96b86ad0327fbe70fafdf27bb4e35 depends: target Windows 10 when building for mingw-w64 (fanquake)
Pull request description:
Follows up to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31048#discussion_r1803165670.
We definitely cannot claim that Bitcoin Core is "supported and extensively tested on" on Windows 7.
Note that #30997 is also increasing the minimum required Windows version (for the GUI) to 10.
ACKs for top commit:
hodlinator:
cr-ACK ee1128ead846698db5e5633f193883837f2fbc64
davidgumberg:
ACK ee1128ead8
achow101:
ACK ee1128ead846698db5e5633f193883837f2fbc64
hebasto:
re-ACK ee1128ead846698db5e5633f193883837f2fbc64, only rebased, a commit message and a comment have been amended since my recent [review](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31172#pullrequestreview-2415452160).
TheCharlatan:
ACK ee1128ead846698db5e5633f193883837f2fbc64
Tree-SHA512: 245e0bac3d63414d919a1948661fef4ff79359faaacaf19d64abd91cc62e822797fb1cf3379e340bfdf9a85c0b88fd99a90eda450dd4218b6213ab78aefb1374
This is not a pure refactor:
1. It slightly changes the log messages, as reflected in the test changes
2. It adds the IP address to all disconnect logging (when fLogIPs is set)
And under the hood suppoert single transactions
in AcceptPackage. This simplifies user experience
and paves the way for reducing number of codepaths
for transaction acceptance in the future.
Co-Authored-By: instagibbs <gsanders87@gmail.com>
Can be tested by running
```
$ sudo tcpdump -i eth0 host 11.22.33.44
```
and verifying that no packets appear in the tcpdump output.
Co-authored-by: Vasil Dimov <vd@FreeBSD.org>
This tests the new submitblock behaviour that is introduced in the
previous commit: Submitting a previously pruned block should persist the
block's data again.
The coinbase check is repeated again early during ProcessNewBlock.
Pre-checking it may also shadow more fundamental problems with a block.
In most cases the block header is checked first, before validating the
transactions. Checking the coinbase first therefore masks potential
issues with the header. Fix this by removing the pre-check.
The pre-check was likely introduced on top of
ada0caa165905b50db351a56ec124518c922085a to fix UB in
GetWitnessCommitmentIndex in case a block's transactions are empty. This
code path could only be reached because of the call to
UpdateUncommittedBlockStructures in submitblock, but cannot be reached
through net_processing.
Add some functional test cases to cover the previous conditions that
lead to a "Block does not start with a coinbase" json rpc error being
returned.
---
With the introduction of a mining ipc interface and the potential future
introduction of a kernel library API it becomes increasingly important
to offer common behaviour between them. An example of this is
ProcessNewBlock, which is used by ipc, rpc, net_processing and
(potentially) the kernel library. Having divergent behaviour on
suggested pre-checks and checks for these functions is confusing to both
developers and users and is a maintenance burden.
The rpc interface for ProcessNewBlock (submitblock) currently pre-checks
if the block has a coinbase transaction and whether it has been
processed before. While the current example binary for how to use the
kernel library, bitcoin-chainstate, imitates these checks, the other
interfaces do not.
Recently added mempool_util implementation probably evolved in parallel with the package RBF one before being submitted as part of ephemeral dust in e2e30e89ba4b9bdbcabaf5b4346610922f0728bb.
5736d1ddacc4019101e7a5170dd25efbc63b622a tracing: pass if replaced by tx/pkg to tracepoint (0xb10c)
a4ec07f1944999c2eead41d08d7dd4fc3aa71243 doc: add comments for CTxMemPool::ChangeSet (Suhas Daftuar)
83f814b1d1100baac9dca9c176f89b0ec2555dbc Remove m_all_conflicts from SubPackageState (Suhas Daftuar)
d3c8e7dfb63f7986a1f9654ea2393aabe3cd78da Ensure that we don't add duplicate transactions in rbf fuzz tests (Suhas Daftuar)
d7dc9fd2f7bc675256687b9c55fdbec9cc8ac781 Move CalculateChunksForRBF() to the mempool changeset (Suhas Daftuar)
284a1d33f1dcbc3b3404ea40a948ff6600239613 Move prioritisation into changeset (Suhas Daftuar)
446b08b599bc492bbec10ccc2292aee6f90c58e7 Don't distinguish between direct conflicts and all conflicts when doing cluster-size-2-rbf checks (Suhas Daftuar)
b53041021abc4f9ee7203341413e8676e2d5a7ca Duplicate transactions are not permitted within a changeset (Suhas Daftuar)
b447416fddcb8c8647391502cca3dbfd1552e02e Public mempool removal methods Assume() no changeset is outstanding (Suhas Daftuar)
2b30f4d36c86f775ac637b171d27d42a02309c5b Make RemoveStaged() private (Suhas Daftuar)
18829194ca68152ac0b38d34e94b9265ee74c410 Enforce that there is only one changeset at a time (Suhas Daftuar)
7fb62f7db60c7d793828ae45f87bc3f5c63cc989 Apply mempool changeset transactions directly into the mempool (Suhas Daftuar)
34b6c5833d11ea84fbd4b891e06408f6f4ca6fac Clean up FinalizeSubpackage to avoid workspace-specific information (Suhas Daftuar)
57983b8add72a04721d3f2050c063a3c4d8683ed Move LimitMempoolSize to take place outside FinalizeSubpackage (Suhas Daftuar)
01e145b9758f1df14a7ea18058ba9577bf88e459 Move changeset from workspace to subpackage (Suhas Daftuar)
802214c0832de00f24268183f7763fa984ba7903 Introduce mempool changesets (Suhas Daftuar)
87d92fa340195d9c87be3d023ca133b90b3b7d4e test: Add unit test coverage of package rbf + prioritisetransaction (Suhas Daftuar)
15d982f91e6b0f145c9dd4edf29827cfabb37a3f Add package hash to package-rbf log message (Suhas Daftuar)
Pull request description:
part of cluster mempool: #30289
It became clear while working on cluster mempool that it would be helpful for transaction validation if we could consider a full set of proposed changes to the mempool -- consisting of a set of transactions to add, and a set of transactions (ie conflicts) to simultaneously remove -- and perform calculations on what the mempool would look like if the proposed changes were to be applied. Two specific examples of where we'd like to do this:
- Determining if ancestor/descendant/TRUC limits would be violated (in the future, cluster limits) if either a single transaction or a package of transactions were to be accepted
- Determining if an RBF would make the mempool "better", however that idea is defined, both in the single transaction and package of transaction cases
In preparation for cluster mempool, I have pulled this reworking of the mempool interface out of #28676 so it can be reviewed on its own. I have not re-implemented ancestor/descendant limits to be run through the changeset, since with cluster mempool those limits will be going away, so this seems like wasted effort. However, I have rebased #28676 on top of this branch so reviewers can see what the new mempool interface could look like in the cluster mempool setting.
There are some minor behavior changes here, which I believe are inconsequential:
- In the package validation setting, transactions would be added to the mempool before the `ConsensusScriptChecks()` are run. In theory, `ConsensusScriptChecks()` should always pass if the `PolicyScriptChecks()` have passed and it's just a belt-and-suspenders for us, but if somehow they were to diverge then there could be some small behavior change from adding transactions and then removing them, versus never adding them at all.
- The error reporting on `CheckConflictTopology()` has slightly changed due to no longer distinguishing between direct conflicts and indirect conflicts. I believe this should be entirely inconsequential because there shouldn't be a logical difference between those two ideas from the perspective of this function, but I did have to update some error strings in some tests.
- Because, in a package setting, RBFs now happen as part of the entire package being accepted, the logging has changed slightly because we do not know which transaction specifically evicted a given removed transaction.
- Specifically, the "package hash" is now used to reference the set of transactions that are being accepted, rather than any single txid. The log message relating to package RBF that happen in the `TXPACKAGES` category has been updated as well to include the package hash, so that it's possible to see which specific set of transactions are being referenced by that package hash.
- Relatedly, the tracepoint logging in the package rbf case has been updated as well to reference the package hash, rather than a transaction hash.
ACKs for top commit:
naumenkogs:
ACK 5736d1ddac
instagibbs:
ACK 5736d1ddacc4019101e7a5170dd25efbc63b622a
ismaelsadeeq:
reACK 5736d1ddacc4019101e7a5170dd25efbc63b622a
glozow:
ACK 5736d1ddacc
Tree-SHA512: 21810872e082920d337c89ac406085aa71c5f8e5151ab07aedf41e6601f60a909b22fbf462ef3b735d5d5881e9b76142c53957158e674dd5dfe6f6aabbdf630b
111465d72dd35e42361fc2a089036f652417ed37 test: Remove unused attempts parameter from wait_until (Fabian Jahr)
5468a23eb9a3fd2b0c08dbca69fe3df58af42530 test: Add check_interval parameter to wait_until (Fabian Jahr)
16c87d91fd4d7709fa9d8824d5b641ef71821931 test: Introduce ensure_for helper (Fabian Jahr)
Pull request description:
A repeating pattern in the functional tests is that the test sleeps for a while to ensure that a certain condition is still true after some amount of time has elapsed. Most recently a new case of this was added in #30807. This PR here introduces an `ensure` helper to streamline this functionality.
Some approach considerations:
- It is possible to construct this by reusing `wait_until` and wrapping it in `try` internally. However, the logger output of the failing wait would still be printed which seems irritating. So I opted for simplified but similar internals to `wait_until`.
- This implementation starts for a failure in the condition right away which has the nice side-effect that it might give feedback on a failure earlier than is currently the case. However, in some cases, it may be expected that the condition may still be false at the beginning and then turns true until time has run out, something that would work when the test sleeps without checking in a loop. I decided against this design (and even against adding it as an option) because such a test design seems like it would be racy either way.
- I have also been going back and forth on naming. To me `ensure` works well but I am also not a native speaker, happy consider a different name if others don't think it's clear enough.
ACKs for top commit:
maflcko:
re-ACK 111465d72dd35e42361fc2a089036f652417ed37 🍋
achow101:
ACK 111465d72dd35e42361fc2a089036f652417ed37
tdb3:
code review re ACK 111465d72dd35e42361fc2a089036f652417ed37
furszy:
utACK 111465d72dd35e42361fc2a089036f652417ed37
Tree-SHA512: ce01a4f3531995375a6fbf01b27d51daa9d4c3d7cd10381be6e86ec5925d2965861000f7cb4796b8d40aabe3b64c4c27e2811270e4e3c9916689575b8ba4a2aa
0bd53d913c1c2ffd2d0779f01bc51c81537b6992 test: add test for getchaintips behavior with invalid chains (Martin Zumsande)
ccd98ea4c88fc1aa959e41e0686d8dff00a44209 test: cleanup rpc_getchaintips.py (Martin Zumsande)
f5149ddb9b7de3559943d7fda0f440e59413dfb5 validation: mark blocks building on an invalid block as BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD (Martin Zumsande)
783cb7337f72a3c7b2e74efd677a8ff0c375fe10 validation: call RecalculateBestHeader in InvalidChainFound (Martin Zumsande)
9275e9689a426964f5eaee65e356754a0548d926 rpc: call RecalculateBestHeader as part of reconsiderblock (Martin Zumsande)
a51e91783aac0beefcb604be159eb1cb96a39051 validation: add RecalculateBestHeader() function (Martin Zumsande)
Pull request description:
`m_best_header` (the most-work header not known to be on an invalid chain) can be wrong in the context of invalidation / reconsideration of blocks. This can happen naturally (a valid header is received and stored in our block tree db; when the full block arrives, it is found to be invalid) or triggered by the user with the `invalidateblock` / `reconsiderblock` rpc.
We don't currently use `m_best_header` for any critical things (see OP of #16974 for a list that still seems up-to-date), so it being wrong affects mostly rpcs.
This PR proposes to recalculate it if necessary by looping over the block index and finding the best header. It also suggest to mark headers between an invalidatetd block and the previous `m_best_header` as invalid, so they won't be considered in the recalculation.
It adds tests to `rpc_invalidateblock.py` and `rpc_getchaintips.py` that fail on master.
One alternative to this suggested in the past would be to introduce a continuous tracking of header tips (#12138).
While this might be more performant, it is also more complicated, and situations where we need this data are only be remotely triggerable by paying the cost of creating a valid PoW header for an invalid block.
Therefore I think it isn't necessary to optimise for performance here, plus the solution in this PR doesn't perform any extra steps in the normal node operation where no invalidated blocks are encountered.
Fixes #26245
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
reACK 0bd53d913c1c2ffd2d0779f01bc51c81537b6992
achow101:
ACK 0bd53d913c1c2ffd2d0779f01bc51c81537b6992
TheCharlatan:
Re-ACK 0bd53d913c1c2ffd2d0779f01bc51c81537b6992
Tree-SHA512: 23c2fc42d7c7bb4f9b4ba4949646b3d0031dd29ed15484e436afd66cd821ed48e0f16a1d02f45477b5d0d73a006f6e81a56b82d9721e0dee2e924219f528b445
