Files
bitcoin/test/functional
Ava Chow 526673487c Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#34683: rpc: support a formal description of our JSON-RPC interface
ca9ffb8e12 rpc: add OpenRPC discovery alias (willcl-ark)
ef0676f400 rpc: factor getaddressinfo embedded field docs (will)
1fb6b60560 test: add functional test for getopenrpcinfo (will)
672dd42d14 rpc: add getopenrpcinfo command (will)
f5116c587f rpc: add placeholder annotation for deprecated params (will)
26c221a980 rpc: expose RPC metadata for introspection (will)
6a1a66c180 rpc: render Type::ANY in help text instead of aborting (will)
06de34a033 rpc: erase empty map entry in removeCommand (will)
d4d64ae739 rpc: add missing string_view include to server.h (will)

Pull request description:

  Fixes #29912

  This PR adds a machine-readable[ OpenRPC](https://www.open-rpc.org/) 1.4.1 specification of out JSON-RPC interface, auto-generated from existing `RPCHelpMan` metadata.

  There is currently no formal, machine-readable specification of the RPC API. As discussed in #29912, this has knock-on consequences:

  - Client libraries re-implement the API manually, leading to bugs like unit mistakes (sats vs BTC, vB vs kvB) and missing/incorrect argument types. No existing client library fully and correctly implements the API in a type-safe manner.
  - When the API changes, every downstream client must manually discover and adapt, creating downstream maintenance burden. There is no artifact they can diff between releases.
  - Implementing a new client in a new language requires reading C++ source or help text and transcribing it, which is error-prone and tedious, and represents an on-going porting cost.
  - Existing documentation is either stale or not machine-readable. The developer.bitcoin.org docs are wrong/outdated in places, and the bitcoincore.org/en/doc/ pages are rendered from help output but not in a standard schema format.
  - (new/extra) AI/LLM tooling increasingly builds on structured API specifications. A standard spec format enables AI-assisted client generation and integration without the ambiguity of parsing human-readable help text.

  This draft builds on prior art by casey and the observations by laanwj, stickies-v, kilianmh, hodlinator, and cdecker in #29912. Casey's work demonstrated that RPCHelpMan already contains all the structured information needed, which makes this feasible without duplicating any API definitions.

  This differs from Casey's branches in that it uses the OpenRPC standard rather than an ad-hoc format or raw JSON Schema.

  ### Why OpenRPC

  I seletced OpenRPC for a number of reasons:

  - It's purpose-built for JSON-RPC APIs (suggested by stickies-v,nflatrea, and kilianmh).
  - It wraps JSON schema for params/results, so consumers get both the method-level structure and the type-level schemas.
  - Unlike OpenAPI, it is not path-centric, which better fits our single-endpoint JSON-RPC model (concern raised by hodlinator).
    - Although it therefore does not cover our REST interface.
  - It's _kind of_ a standard format with (_some_) existing tooling for type generation (TypeScript, Rust, Python, Go) and client scaffolding, though maturity varies by language. More importantly though, IMO, a ~standardised format is inherently more useful than any ad-hoc one: any JSON Schema validator works, any LLM can consume it directly, and anyone can write a bespoke generator against a known schema rather than parsing help text.

  ### Approach

  `RPCHelpMan` metadata → `getopenrpcinfo` / `rpc.discover` → OpenRPC JSON

  ### Tradeoffs

  vs an ad-hoc format OpenRPC gives us interoperability with the (admittedly surprisingly limited) tooling, documentation generators, code generators, and validators, at the cost of needing x-bitcoin-* extensions for Bitcoin-specific concepts. As Casey noted after trying both approaches, JSON Schema "is probably not a great fit". OpenRPC's method-level framing on top of JSON Schema addresses the ergonomic issues while keeping the schema benefits. After testing both, I think I agree.

  Types: JSON Schema cannot natively express all Bitcoin-specific semantics. Amount result fields are represented as JSON numbers with `x-bitcoin-unit: amount`; other Bitcoin-specific distinctions remain in descriptions or `x-bitcoin-*` extensions. More structured unit metadata and stronger constraints can be added in follow-up work.

  Some RPCs return different types depending on argument values (e.g. verbosity levels). These are represented as `oneOf` in the result schema with free-text condition descriptions. This is accurate but not fully machine-parseable — a code generator cannot automatically determine which result variant corresponds to which argument value without parsing the description. I still we have enough information to satisfy humans an agents alike though.

  ### Regenerating the spec

  The functional test invokes both RPCs, verifies valid JSON, checks public and hidden RPC handling, and covers representative generated schemas. It does not compare a committed generated artifact.

  `getopenrpcinfo` omits hidden RPCs and arguments by default; `getopenrpcinfo(true)` includes them. The standard parameterless `rpc.discover` method returns the public document.

  The RPC output documents which RPCs are available for any given built binary.

  ### Discussion questions

  - Is this valuable/wanted?
  - Do we like openrpc format? (less relevant if we don't want this in this repo, as another repo could generate one or many definitions).
  - Should we cover "hidden" RPCs? They are currently hidden, but don't have to be...

  My personal thoughts are that this is very nice to have.

ACKs for top commit:
  dergoegge:
    ACK ca9ffb8e12
  achow101:
    ACK ca9ffb8e12
  sedited:
    ACK ca9ffb8e12
  w0xlt:
    ACK ca9ffb8e12

Tree-SHA512: 5bf7abdb9f119d591306884f31b9da815908e5cb5812706c5496b39162c22cd949465d7b3ff1fdce7ff5b3c1b6367c14b6d28d58dee86698c0161d4d844d84c9
2026-07-23 10:57:25 -07:00
..
2026-04-21 14:11:13 +02:00
2026-06-04 21:58:56 +10:00
2026-07-16 10:29:58 +01:00
2026-07-16 10:29:58 +01:00
2026-04-29 15:11:44 -07:00

Functional tests

Writing Functional Tests

Example test

The file test/functional/example_test.py is a heavily commented example of a test case that uses both the RPC and P2P interfaces. If you are writing your first test, copy that file and modify to fit your needs.

Coverage

Assuming the build directory is build, running build/test/functional/test_runner.py with the --coverage argument tracks which RPCs are called by the tests and prints a report of uncovered RPCs in the summary. This can be used (along with the --extended argument) to find out which RPCs we don't have test cases for.

Style guidelines

  • Where possible, try to adhere to PEP-8 guidelines
  • Use a python linter like flake8 before submitting PRs to catch common style nits (eg trailing whitespace, unused imports, etc)
  • The oldest supported Python version is specified in doc/dependencies.md. Consider using pyenv, which checks .python-version, to prevent accidentally introducing modern syntax from an unsupported Python version. The CI linter job also checks this, but possibly not in all cases.
  • See the python lint script that checks for violations that could lead to bugs and issues in the test code.
  • Use type hints in your code to improve code readability and to detect possible bugs earlier.
  • Avoid wildcard imports.
  • If more than one name from a module is needed, use lexicographically sorted multi-line imports in order to reduce the possibility of potential merge conflicts.
  • Use a module-level docstring to describe what the test is testing, and how it is testing it.
  • When subclassing the BitcoinTestFramework, place overrides for the set_test_params(), add_options() and setup_xxxx() methods at the top of the subclass, then locally-defined helper methods, then the run_test() method.
  • Use f'{x}' for string formatting in preference to '{}'.format(x) or '%s' % x.
  • Use platform.system() for detecting the running operating system and os.name to check whether it's a POSIX system (see also the skip_if_platform_not_{linux,posix} methods in the BitcoinTestFramework class, which can be used to skip a whole test depending on the platform).

Naming guidelines

  • Name the test <area>_test.py, where area can be one of the following:
    • feature for tests for full features that aren't wallet/mining/mempool, eg feature_rbf.py
    • interface for tests for other interfaces (REST, ZMQ, etc), eg interface_rest.py
    • mempool for tests for mempool behaviour, eg mempool_reorg.py
    • mining for tests for mining features, eg mining_prioritisetransaction.py
    • p2p for tests that explicitly test the p2p interface, eg p2p_disconnect_ban.py
    • rpc for tests for individual RPC methods or features, eg rpc_listtransactions.py
    • tool for tests for tools, eg tool_wallet.py
    • wallet for tests for wallet features, eg wallet_keypool.py
  • Use an underscore to separate words
    • exception: for tests for specific RPCs or command line options which don't include underscores, name the test after the exact RPC or argument name, eg rpc_decodescript.py, not rpc_decode_script.py
  • Don't use the redundant word test in the name, eg interface_zmq.py, not interface_zmq_test.py

General test-writing advice

  • Instead of inline comments or no test documentation at all, log the comments to the test log, e.g. self.log.info('Create enough transactions to fill a block'). Logs make the test code easier to read and the test logic easier to debug.
  • Set self.num_nodes to the minimum number of nodes necessary for the test. Having additional unrequired nodes adds to the execution time of the test as well as memory/CPU/disk requirements (which is important when running tests in parallel).
  • Avoid stop-starting the nodes multiple times during the test if possible. A stop-start takes several seconds, so doing it several times blows up the runtime of the test.
  • Set the self.setup_clean_chain variable in set_test_params() to True to initialize an empty blockchain and start from the Genesis block, rather than load a premined blockchain from cache with the default value of False. The cached data directories contain a 200-block pre-mined blockchain with the spendable mining rewards being split between four nodes. Each node has 25 mature block subsidies (25x50=1250 BTC) in its wallet. Using them is much more efficient than mining blocks in your test.
  • When calling RPCs with lots of arguments, consider using named keyword arguments instead of positional arguments to make the intent of the call clear to readers.
  • Many of the core test framework classes such as CBlock and CTransaction don't allow new attributes to be added to their objects at runtime like typical Python objects allow. This helps prevent unpredictable side effects from typographical errors or usage of the objects outside of their intended purpose.

RPC and P2P definitions

Test writers may find it helpful to refer to the definitions for the RPC and P2P messages. These can be found in the following source files:

  • /src/rpc/* for RPCs
  • /src/wallet/rpc* for wallet RPCs
  • ProcessMessage() in /src/net_processing.cpp for parsing P2P messages

Using the P2P interface

  • P2Ps can be used to test specific P2P protocol behavior. p2p.py contains test framework p2p objects and messages.py contains all the definitions for objects passed over the network (CBlock, CTransaction, etc, along with the network-level wrappers for them, msg_block, msg_tx, etc).

  • P2P tests have two threads. One thread handles all network communication with the bitcoind(s) being tested in a callback-based event loop; the other implements the test logic.

  • P2PConnection is the class used to connect to a bitcoind. P2PInterface contains the higher level logic for processing P2P payloads and connecting to the Bitcoin Core node application logic. For custom behaviour, subclass the P2PInterface object and override the callback methods.

P2PConnections can be used as such:

p2p_conn = node.add_p2p_connection(P2PInterface())
p2p_conn.send_and_ping(msg)

They can also be referenced by indexing into a TestNode's p2ps list, which contains the list of test framework p2p objects connected to itself (it does not include any TestNodes):

node.p2ps[0].sync_with_ping()

More examples can be found in p2p_unrequested_blocks.py, p2p_compactblocks.py.

Prototyping tests

The TestShell class exposes the BitcoinTestFramework functionality to interactive Python3 environments and can be used to prototype tests. This may be especially useful in a REPL environment with session logging utilities, such as IPython. The logs of such interactive sessions can later be adapted into permanent test cases.

Test framework modules

The following are useful modules for test developers. They are located in test/functional/test_framework/.

authproxy.py

Taken from the python-bitcoinrpc repository.

test_framework.py

Base class for functional tests.

util.py

Generally useful functions.

p2p.py

Test objects for interacting with a bitcoind node over the p2p interface.

script.py

Utilities for manipulating transaction scripts (originally from python-bitcoinlib)

key.py

Test-only secp256k1 elliptic curve implementation

blocktools.py

Helper functions for creating blocks and transactions.