c7e2b9e2644442b147880becb8a659f3d00092d9 tests: Test migration cleans up bad inactive chain derivation path (Ava Chow)
Pull request description:
A bug in 0.21.x and 22.x resulted in some wallets having invalid derivation paths that are the concatenation of two derivation paths. These appear only when inactive hd chains are topped up.
Since key metadata is a legacy wallet only record, migrating legacy wallets to descriptor wallets will fix this issue as all key metadata records are deleted. The derivation path information is derived on-the-fly from the descriptor that is produced for the inactive hd chain.
Thus we only need a test to verify that the derivation paths are good, and that all key metadata records are deleted from the migrated wallet.
ACKs for top commit:
murchandamus:
re-ACK c7e2b9e2644442b147880becb8a659f3d00092d9 via range-diff:
rkrux:
re-ACK c7e2b9e2644442b147880becb8a659f3d00092d9
furszy:
utACK c7e2b9e2644442b147880becb8a659f3d00092d9
Tree-SHA512: 3117c4a43798972109fe2d3539341a8b69db70c6457fcabdd019e6044834dc4b17212abbc006d7b8008f560dce4b7856142b057981b9404f406d58fa0955cbd9
fa58f40b898ba6c57655bf38a241fb10107d4a3a test: Slim down previous releases bdb check (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
The check iterates over several previous BDB-only releases to check that descriptor wallets are considered "corrupt" when loading. It is unclear why this needs to be done for more than one release.
Avoid the confusion by removing the unused releases from the test and from the download script.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK fa58f40b898ba6c57655bf38a241fb10107d4a3a
rkrux:
ACK fa58f40b898ba6c57655bf38a241fb10107d4a3a
Tree-SHA512: 8084392481bfe1fba9b80bb865ffbdfa454e9e6e14e02c39fa3f61c1a596b1def2c531c5da1c7566e5fddb77ac7e56f19feabaaf9b5af043fa6c230d9e2370b5
A bug in 0.21.x and 22.x resulted in some wallets having invalid
derivation paths that are the concatenation of two derivation paths.
These appear only when inactive hd chains are topped up.
Since key metadata is a legacy wallet only record, migrating legacy
wallets to descriptor wallets will fix this issue as all key metadata
records are deleted. The derivation path information is derived
on-the-fly from the descriptor that is produced for the inactive hd
chain.
Thus we only need a test to verify that the derivation paths are good,
and that all key metadata records are deleted from the migrated wallet.
Legacy wallets do not have the descriptors flag set. Don't load wallets
without the descriptors flag.
At the same time, we will no longer load BDB databases since they are
only used for legacy wallets.
Removes all legacy wallet specific functional tests.
Also removes the --descriptor and --legacy-wallet options as these are
no longer necessary with the legacy wallet removed.
fa86190e6ed2aeda7bcceaf96f52403816bcd751 rpc: Allow fullrbf fee bump (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
The RPCs (psbt)bumpfee, and the GUI, reject fee bumps when BIP 125 signalling is absent in the transaction even when the mempool and other RPCs allow them. Fix the confusion by allowing the fee bump.
This is done after fullrbf is always on (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30592)
ACKs for top commit:
1440000bytes:
reACK fa86190e6e
achow101:
ACK fa86190e6ed2aeda7bcceaf96f52403816bcd751
w0xlt:
ACK fa86190e6e
rkrux:
reACK fa86190e6ed2aeda7bcceaf96f52403816bcd751
glozow:
ACK fa86190e6ed2aeda7bcceaf96f52403816bcd751
Tree-SHA512: b2ffe8dcadbe71e9be767a16cf8aa0bf383c2de7aa1aee9438d125f444e24f3f7e4f02ddb28981bd3b8b645b6a24a407b4ad6bb0b21946ae637e78f6386e05bf
e261eb8d50c7192260a449e653453e63f59dbeed tests: Add BIP 373 test vectors (Ava Chow)
26370c68d09ddd6c8d24ef3b62e7b87a09e6dcaa rpc: Include MuSig2 fields in decodepsbt (Ava Chow)
ff3d460898489d2c509492a9a11b1a336e6ec662 psbt: Implement un/ser of musig2 fields (Ava Chow)
Pull request description:
Implements un/serialization of MuSig2 PSBT fields and prepares PSBT to be able to sign for MuSig2 inputs.
Split from #29675
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
re-ACK e261eb8d50c7192260a449e653453e63f59dbeed
theStack:
re-ACK e261eb8d50c7192260a449e653453e63f59dbeed
rkrux:
tACK e261eb8d50c7192260a449e653453e63f59dbeed
Tree-SHA512: bb852ad074978847ac4dc656332025e2d4d1025d4283537b89618c7cadd61a8ecd2eff24779b8a014bc8d7b431125060449768192fa05ad0577f29e3c64b2374
Also, fix the incorrect documention of the 'replaceable' RPC argument
with respect to sequence number handling. The docs were incorrect
before, so the fix could be extracted, but it seems fine to include here
as well.
2929da1dd592da79e0afa6834a82c1bc54fbcf18 test: Add coverage for rpcwhitelistdefault when unset (naiyoma)
535b8747074c368fc8f9931c37a8109d35136885 test: Combine rpcwhitelistdefault functions (naiyoma)
2b6ce9254da5fe3dcd7b6ae212b6276c01d15c71 test: Update permissions and string formatting (naiyoma)
Pull request description:
This is a follow-up PR to address review feedback from [https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29858](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29858)
- [x] add case where rpcwhitelistdefault setting is [unset](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29858#pullrequestreview-2532726241)
- [x] Code [cleanup](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29858#discussion_r1927238617) , change password and f-string formatting
- [x] [Combine](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29858#discussion_r1930137601) rpcwhitelistdefault tests into `test_rpcwhitelistdefault_permissions`
I am not sure if my approach of adding` test_rpcwhitelistdefault_unset` is better or if I should just include the assertions in the existing `test_rpcwhitelistdefault_permissions`
ACKs for top commit:
w0xlt:
Code review ACK 2929da1dd5
achow101:
ACK 2929da1dd592da79e0afa6834a82c1bc54fbcf18
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 2929da1dd592da79e0afa6834a82c1bc54fbcf18. Only change since last review was simplifying the last commit as suggested
Tree-SHA512: 6750dd3e6abaca3a09ad1fd5d07c64767bc59188ff953cbc26aa7796071774cb92745ac82cf91e479632d682fd450bc00d53032454b65b22654a3e770ec68e89
fac978fb213fbd6668194d8b9810ddd10f8a7323 test: Remove fragile and ancient release 0.17 wallet test (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
The test checks that the 0.17 wallet rejects wallet files created in "the future".
This is nice, and good to know. However,
* The 0.17 release is ancient and should be unused outside of tests, especially to load future wallets.
* The test intermittently fails, due to ancient RPC server bugs, that were fixed in the meantime. [1]
* Albeit they are not identical, the 0.18 release is still checked in this test, so any theoretical bug that would be caught by 0.17 is hopefully still caught by 0.18 as well.
So fix all issues by removing the test case.
[1] For example from https://api.cirrus-ci.com/v1/task/6161588714995712/logs/ci.log:
```
190/321 - [1mwallet_backwards_compatibility.py --descriptors[0m failed, Duration: 23 s
[17:21:40.700]
[17:21:40.700] [1mstdout:
[17:21:40.700] [0m2025-04-02T21:21:16.575000Z TestFramework (INFO): PRNG seed is: 5772716217847090743
[17:21:40.700] 2025-04-02T21:21:16.580000Z TestFramework (INFO): Initializing test directory /ci_container_base/ci/scratch/test_runner/test_runner_₿_🏃_20250402_210134/wallet_backwards_compatibility_134
[17:21:40.700] 2025-04-02T21:21:26.378000Z TestFramework (INFO): Test wallet backwards compatibility...
[17:21:40.700] 2025-04-02T21:21:33.191000Z TestFramework (INFO): Testing 0.19 addmultisigaddress case (#18075)
[17:21:40.700] 2025-04-02T21:21:33.637000Z TestFramework (INFO): Test that a wallet made on master can be opened on:
[17:21:40.700] 2025-04-02T21:21:33.637000Z TestFramework (INFO): - 250000
[17:21:40.700] 2025-04-02T21:21:34.055000Z TestFramework (INFO): - 240001
[17:21:40.700] 2025-04-02T21:21:34.435000Z TestFramework (INFO): - 230000
[17:21:40.700] 2025-04-02T21:21:34.858000Z TestFramework (INFO): - 220000
[17:21:40.700] 2025-04-02T21:21:35.614000Z TestFramework (INFO): - 210000
[17:21:40.700] 2025-04-02T21:21:35.707000Z TestFramework (INFO): Test descriptor wallet incompatibility on:
[17:21:40.700] 2025-04-02T21:21:35.707000Z TestFramework (INFO): - 200100
[17:21:40.700] 2025-04-02T21:21:35.878000Z TestFramework (INFO): - 190100
[17:21:40.700] 2025-04-02T21:21:36.021000Z TestFramework (INFO): - 180100
[17:21:40.700] 2025-04-02T21:21:36.319000Z TestFramework (INFO): Test descriptor wallet incompatibility with 0.17
[17:21:40.700] 2025-04-02T21:21:37.328000Z TestFramework (INFO): Test that 0.21 cannot open wallet containing tr() descriptors
[17:21:40.700] 2025-04-02T21:21:37.356000Z TestFramework (INFO): Test that a wallet can upgrade to and downgrade from master, from:
[17:21:40.700] 2025-04-02T21:21:37.361000Z TestFramework (INFO): - 250000
[17:21:40.700] 2025-04-02T21:21:37.665000Z TestFramework (INFO): - 240001
[17:21:40.700] 2025-04-02T21:21:37.970000Z TestFramework (INFO): - 230000
[17:21:40.700] 2025-04-02T21:21:38.439000Z TestFramework (INFO): - 220000
[17:21:40.700] 2025-04-02T21:21:38.793000Z TestFramework (INFO): - 210000
[17:21:40.700] 2025-04-02T21:21:39.470000Z TestFramework (INFO): Stopping nodes
[17:21:40.700]
[17:21:40.700]
[17:21:40.700] [1mstderr:
[17:21:40.700] [0mTraceback (most recent call last):
[17:21:40.700] File "/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/test/functional/wallet_backwards_compatibility.py", line 389, in <module>
[17:21:40.700] BackwardsCompatibilityTest(__file__).main()
[17:21:40.700] File "/ci_container_base/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 206, in main
[17:21:40.700] exit_code = self.shutdown()
[17:21:40.700] File "/ci_container_base/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 379, in shutdown
[17:21:40.700] self.stop_nodes()
[17:21:40.700] File "/ci_container_base/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 643, in stop_nodes
[17:21:40.700] node.stop_node(wait=wait, wait_until_stopped=False)
[17:21:40.700] File "/ci_container_base/test/functional/test_framework/test_node.py", line 397, in stop_node
[17:21:40.700] self.stop()
[17:21:40.700] File "/ci_container_base/test/functional/test_framework/coverage.py", line 50, in __call__
[17:21:40.700] return_val = self.auth_service_proxy_instance.__call__(*args, **kwargs)
[17:21:40.700] File "/ci_container_base/test/functional/test_framework/authproxy.py", line 132, in __call__
[17:21:40.700] response, status = self._request('POST', self.__url.path, postdata.encode('utf-8'))
[17:21:40.700] File "/ci_container_base/test/functional/test_framework/authproxy.py", line 106, in _request
[17:21:40.700] return self._get_response()
[17:21:40.700] File "/ci_container_base/test/functional/test_framework/authproxy.py", line 169, in _get_response
[17:21:40.700] http_response = self.__conn.getresponse()
[17:21:40.700] File "/usr/lib/python3.10/http/client.py", line 1375, in getresponse
[17:21:40.700] response.begin()
[17:21:40.700] File "/usr/lib/python3.10/http/client.py", line 318, in begin
[17:21:40.700] version, status, reason = self._read_status()
[17:21:40.700] File "/usr/lib/python3.10/http/client.py", line 287, in _read_status
[17:21:40.700] raise RemoteDisconnected("Remote end closed connection without"
[17:21:40.700] http.client.RemoteDisconnected: Remote end closed connection without response
[17:21:40.700] [node 10] Cleaning up leftover process
[17:21:40.700] [node 9] Cleaning up leftover process
[17:21:40.700] [node 8] Cleaning up leftover process
[17:21:40.700] [node 7] Cleaning up leftover process
[17:21:40.700] [node 6] Cleaning up leftover process
[17:21:40.700] [node 5] Cleaning up leftover process
[17:21:40.700] [node 4] Cleaning up leftover process
[17:21:40.700] [node 3] Cleaning up leftover process
[17:21:40.700] [node 2] Cleaning up leftover process
[17:21:40.700] [node 1] Cleaning up leftover process
[17:21:40.700] [node 0] Cleaning up leftover process
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK fac978fb213fbd6668194d8b9810ddd10f8a7323
janb84:
Re ACK [fac978f](fac978fb21)
pablomartin4btc:
re ACK fac978fb213fbd6668194d8b9810ddd10f8a7323
BrandonOdiwuor:
Code Review ACK fac978fb213fbd6668194d8b9810ddd10f8a7323
Tree-SHA512: 13acdfc6be4293a0ff45ae20b26ba60636e130097da380b7b51716faaa950320462399bef55e74b3cedc82944586dcc1bfd078babb96edb03c4efdb8f40af5a4
459807d566cfddad12b2953a506fd07a129145d8 test: remove strict restrictions on rpc_deprecated (Pol Espinasa)
Pull request description:
Removed the wallet restrictions for `rpc_deprecated.py` and added specific test case for the current deprecated rpc.
`skip_test_if_missing_module` will skip the whole test when the wallet is missing, even if a part of the test is non-wallet related. This PR ensures that other tests not related to wallet can be ran and only this specific test will be skipped if there's no wallet
For more context check https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31278#discussion_r2011661090
ACKs for top commit:
maflcko:
lgtm ACK 459807d566cfddad12b2953a506fd07a129145d8
rkrux:
ACK 459807d
Tree-SHA512: 922b0fafe8fb5bd88a677ce8be5c3fe2fdd4d0aadcd32cc11738a714cd6f765f07e7e7158c829f8338db0d46a15c030437a1ea09a3187c072bebebb4ca53ad85
f974359e218edc3f31685015e234d00243a79452 test: Add encodable PUSHDATA1 examples to feature_taproot (Greg Sanders)
Pull request description:
Inspired by discussion in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31640#issuecomment-2743492906 I made an example adding coverage I think is missing, with some extra commentary that might help future contributors (including myself when I forget how it works again).
Open for suggestions how we can make it more welcoming beyond this.
cc darosior EthanHeilman sipa
ACKs for top commit:
janb84:
Re-ACK [f974359](f974359e21)
rkrux:
ACK f974359e218edc3f31685015e234d00243a79452
Tree-SHA512: 7544d41c39c13d245a8a33522e53f22b4dd7593c069631978303e5a349cd12cf9d45bed648c391618c4732831232c4b82b8de2bf6cba5bf5e1232501db926122
Removed the wallet restrictions for rpc_deprecated.py and added specific test case for the current deprecated rpc.
skip_test_if_missing_module will skip the whole test when the wallet is missing, even if a part of the test is non-wallet related.
7bb83f6718110cb3a29e72522fdc5515db21c7d0 test: create assert_not_equal util and add to where imports are needed (kevkevin)
Pull request description:
In the functional tests there are lots of cases where we assert != which we now swap with assert_not_equal to be more readable
This is motivated/uses logic from this PR which was closed https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28528
This partially helps https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23119
I've broken it up to just `assert_not_equal` to keep the PR smaller as suggested in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28528#issuecomment-1959945805
I can create follow up PR's if this is wanted
ACKs for top commit:
hodlinator:
re-ACK 7bb83f6718110cb3a29e72522fdc5515db21c7d0
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 7bb83f6718110cb3a29e72522fdc5515db21c7d0. Only change since last review is fixing error message formatting and passing it as a keyword argument
janb84:
Re-ACK [7bb83f6](7bb83f6718)
Tree-SHA512: de09f41a690033a5b61e6f861d3bd69a32b889d6655a28fbc0d5cfac9f7ec9c642432967d33913970882b4cfdd47bdd377d0ddc44e25976cbaa49f7f9d8f7b10
aa7a898c236eb519aaf546afee2b9c2b6dfdea1f doc: use testnet4 in developer docs (Sjors Provoost)
6c217d22fdc978cac0f970cf2296a9fa1e00ee97 test: use testnet4 in argsman test (Sjors Provoost)
7c200ece80575d399a552f5757c07ac2c8c7ec6c test: use testnet4 in key_io_valid.json (Sjors Provoost)
d424bd59413c8ffc7a263635e5b9882497d39fed test: drop unused testnet3 magic bytes (Sjors Provoost)
8cfc09fafe59adae4904a21589736de93a00ad2d test: cover testnet4 magic in assumeutxo.py (Sjors Provoost)
4281e3603a2eadefc8535b863128a05cf3a5a75f zmq: use testnet4 in zmq_sub.py example (Sjors Provoost)
Pull request description:
In preparation for dropping testnet3 entirely in #31974 this PR migrates a few things to testnet4:
* the ZMQ examples
* developer docs
* various unit tests
* the snapshot magic byte check in `feature_assumeutxo.py`
It drops `testnet3` from `MAGIC_BYTES` in the test framework, since no test uses it.
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
re-ACK aa7a898c236eb519aaf546afee2b9c2b6dfdea1f
maflcko:
lgtm ACK aa7a898c236eb519aaf546afee2b9c2b6dfdea1f 🔊
hodlinator:
re-ACK aa7a898c236eb519aaf546afee2b9c2b6dfdea1f
Tree-SHA512: 235f74273234e8fb2aedf0017dea5c16bb9813ec7a1f89a51abe85691f09830a5ead834115d7db0936e12e55a40bc81888856a8002fe507c1474407e77f8b9fb
In the functional tests there are lots of cases where we assert != which
this new util will replace, we also are adding the imports and the new assertion
d065208f0f06309d776114d777bb16b8c38af3f1 test: get rid of redundant TODO tag (Chandra Pratap)
Pull request description:
The `FEE` parameter in `test/functional/feature_dbcrash.py::generate_small_transaction()` is not a fee rate, but an absolute fee. Hence, it doesn't make sense to replace it with node relay based fee calculation. Get rid of the TODO comment suggesting otherwise.
ACKs for top commit:
maflcko:
lgtm ACK d065208f0f06309d776114d777bb16b8c38af3f1
Tree-SHA512: f2b7f51ffb23de8e14ca071edd731410176a20750115a65db0ae67714389e03ffe1593ce88368e96d211329bd93c772f665de7c3a59b932681bc5b80db908d9f
ca55613fd1596c3e9e5c3cc5c4a7ea4591841fc0 test: Add functional test for bitcoin-chainstate (TheCharlatan)
3f9c716e7fc76a6fb5935dc3cd548097e58da978 test: Fix docstring for cmake migration (TheCharlatan)
Pull request description:
While the `bitcoin-chainstate` utility is not shipped in a release, it is the only current utility directly using the bitcoin kernel library. Adding a simple test for it is useful for checking that the library is actually usable. The test is also useful in future to demonstrate that the `bitcoin-chainstate` binary using the API for the kernel library introduced in #30595 actually works and offers similar features.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK ca55613fd1596c3e9e5c3cc5c4a7ea4591841fc0
maflcko:
ACK ca55613fd1596c3e9e5c3cc5c4a7ea4591841fc0 🎭
kevkevinpal:
ACK ca55613fd1596c3e9e5c3cc5c4a7ea4591841fc0
Tree-SHA512: 282627f5fac868a84aab9962ef2cbd3a8d3941d9f9dc2a3f26db1e7706ffa8051637ab5f8372676800e426e077ca40449a9e3e42a003048472339d81ed81bca8
a82829f37e1ed298b6c2b6d2859d4bea65fe3dcc test: simplify (w)txid checks by avoiding .calc_sha256 calls (Sebastian Falbesoner)
346a099fc1e282c8b53d740d65999d8866d17953 test: avoid unneeded hash -> uint256 -> hash roundtrips (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
In the functional test framework we currently have a strong tendency to treat and store identifiers that result from hash functions (e.g. (w)txids, block hashes) as integers, which seems an unnatural and confusing choice. Hashes are just pseudo-random sequences of bytes, and there is usually no need to apply integer operations on them; the only exceptions I could think of is PoW-verification of block hashes with the less-than (`<`) operator, or interpreting the byte-string as scalar in the EC-context for e.g. key derivation.
I'd hence argue that most uses of `ser_uint256`/`uint256_from_str` and txid conversions via `int(txid/blockhash, 16)` are potential code smells and should be reduced to a minimum long-term if possible. This PR is a first step into this direction, intentionally kept small with (what I think) uncontroversial changes for demonstration purposes, to check out if other contributors are interested in this. A next step could be to change the classes of primitives (CTransaction, CBlock etc.) and network messages (msg_) to store hash results as actual bytes (maybe in a class wrapping the bytes that offers conversion from/to human-readable strings [1], for easier interaction with RPC calls and debug outputs) rather than ints. But that would of course need larger, potentially more controversial changes, and its questionable if its really worth the effort.
[1] unfortunately, txids and block hashes are shown to user in reverse byte order, so e.g. a txid_bytes->txid_str conversion is not just a simple `txid_bytes.hex()`, but a `txid_bytes[::-1].hex()`
ACKs for top commit:
maflcko:
review ACK a82829f37e1ed298b6c2b6d2859d4bea65fe3dcc 🐘
rkrux:
Concept and utACK a82829f37e1ed298b6c2b6d2859d4bea65fe3dcc
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK a82829f37e1ed298b6c2b6d2859d4bea65fe3dcc. Nice changes, and sorry about the false bug report
Tree-SHA512: bb0465802d743a495207800f922b65f49ed0d20552f95bb0bee764944664092aad74812e29df6e01ef40bcb8f9bc6c84c7e9cbbe6f008ee1a14d94ed88e698b4
248fdd88dcf651a0560a3eedfb8af61f38c61400 test: accept unordered tracepoints in... (willcl-ark)
Pull request description:
We have encountered an instance where the tracepoints were not collected in the same order they were fired (#31951).
Tracepoint ordering is not guaranteed in userspace for a number of reasons.
As this test does not require a strict collection/processing order collect `expected` and `actual` events into dicts and compare them.
This will gracefully handle both the number of events, and out-of-order events should they reoccur in the future.
Fixes: #31951
ACKs for top commit:
0xB10C:
re-ACK 248fdd88dcf651a0560a3eedfb8af61f38c61400
laanwj:
Code review ACK 248fdd88dcf651a0560a3eedfb8af61f38c61400
Tree-SHA512: 78d1aa936194d386d919ed26133aac3af5fc6d3d0b1fe1e767288d9e6226e2c701d640e71e994a63ccd48344bd2a0db508cb353cdd5ce1f644cd6f7313654623
The 'FEE' parameter in test/functional/feature_dbcrash.py::
generate_small_transaction() is not a fee rate, but an
absolute fee. Hence, it doesn't make sense to replace it
with node relay based fee calculation. Get rid of the TODO
comment suggesting otherwise.
...interface_usdt_utxocache.py
We have encountered an instance where the tracepoints were not collected
in the same order they were fired (#31951).
Tracepoint ordering is not guaranteed in userspace for a number of
reasons.
As this test does not require a strict collection/processing order
collect `expected` and `actual` events into dicts and compare them.
This will gracefully handle both the number of events, and out-of-order
events should they reoccur in the future.
