40fdb9ece9
caac999ff0fc5c98fa438b7e96fe1232f6573fd5 refactor: remove dependence on AddrManTest (josibake) f961c477b56737c546c275e4d86cecfa3f75d48c refactor: check Good() in tried_collisions test (josibake) 207f1c825c632c54af009516d376d392ea9106fa refactor: make AddrMan::Good return bool (josibake) Pull request description: Previously, the `addrman_tried_collisions` test behaved in the following way: 1. add an address to addrman 2. attempt to move the new address to the tried table (using `AddrMan.Good()`) 3. verify that `num_addrs` matched `size()` to check for collisions in the new table `AddrMan.size()`, however, returns the number of unique address in addrman, regardless of whether they are in new or tried. This means the test would still pass for addresses where a collision did occur in the tried table. After 3 collisions in the tried table, there would eventually be a collision in the new table when trying to add a new address, which was then detected by checking `num_addrs - collisions == size()`. While the collision in the new table was caused by a collision in the tried table, the test is misleading as it's not directly testing for collisions in the tried table and misses 3 collisions before identifying a collision in the new table. ### solution To more directly test the tried table, I refactored `AddrMan::Good()` to return a boolean after successfully adding an address to the tried table. This makes the test much cleaner by first adding an address to new, calling `Good` to move it to the tried table, and checking if it was successful or not. It is worth noting there are other reasons, aside from collisions, which will cause `Good` to return false. That being said, this is an improvement over the previous testing methodology. Additionally, having `Good()` return a boolean is useful outside of testing as it allows the caller to handle the case where `Good` is unable to move the entry to the tried table (e.ga063647413/src/rpc/net.cpp (L945)). ### followup As a follow up to this PR, I plan to look at the following places `Good()` is called and see if it makes sense to handle the case where it is unable to add an entry to tried: *a063647413/src/rpc/net.cpp (L945)*a063647413/src/net.cpp (L2067)*a063647413/src/net_processing.cpp (L2708)ACKs for top commit: jnewbery: utACK caac999ff0 mzumsande: Code review ACK caac999ff0fc5c98fa438b7e96fe1232f6573fd5 Tree-SHA512: f328896b1f095e8d2581fcdbddce46fc0491731a0440c6fff01081fa5696cfb896dbbe1d183eda2c100f19aa111e1f8b096ef93582197edc6b791de563a58f99
Bitcoin Core integration/staging tree
For an immediately usable, binary version of the Bitcoin Core software, see https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/.
Further information about Bitcoin Core is available in the doc folder.
What is Bitcoin?
Bitcoin is an experimental digital currency that enables instant payments to anyone, anywhere in the world. Bitcoin uses peer-to-peer technology to operate with no central authority: managing transactions and issuing money are carried out collectively by the network. Bitcoin Core is the name of open source software which enables the use of this currency.
For more information read the original Bitcoin whitepaper.
License
Bitcoin Core is released under the terms of the MIT license. See COPYING for more information or see https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT.
Development Process
The master branch is regularly built (see doc/build-*.md for instructions) and tested, but it is not guaranteed to be
completely stable. Tags are created
regularly from release branches to indicate new official, stable release versions of Bitcoin Core.
The https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui repository is used exclusively for the development of the GUI. Its master branch is identical in all monotree repositories. Release branches and tags do not exist, so please do not fork that repository unless it is for development reasons.
The contribution workflow is described in CONTRIBUTING.md and useful hints for developers can be found in doc/developer-notes.md.
Testing
Testing and code review is the bottleneck for development; we get more pull requests than we can review and test on short notice. Please be patient and help out by testing other people's pull requests, and remember this is a security-critical project where any mistake might cost people lots of money.
Automated Testing
Developers are strongly encouraged to write unit tests for new code, and to
submit new unit tests for old code. Unit tests can be compiled and run
(assuming they weren't disabled in configure) with: make check. Further details on running
and extending unit tests can be found in /src/test/README.md.
There are also regression and integration tests, written
in Python.
These tests can be run (if the test dependencies are installed) with: test/functional/test_runner.py
The CI (Continuous Integration) systems make sure that every pull request is built for Windows, Linux, and macOS, and that unit/sanity tests are run automatically.
Manual Quality Assurance (QA) Testing
Changes should be tested by somebody other than the developer who wrote the code. This is especially important for large or high-risk changes. It is useful to add a test plan to the pull request description if testing the changes is not straightforward.
Translations
Changes to translations as well as new translations can be submitted to Bitcoin Core's Transifex page.
Translations are periodically pulled from Transifex and merged into the git repository. See the translation process for details on how this works.
Important: We do not accept translation changes as GitHub pull requests because the next pull from Transifex would automatically overwrite them again.