dash/test/functional/wallet_balance.py

279 lines
14 KiB
Python
Raw Normal View History

#!/usr/bin/env python3
# Copyright (c) 2018-2020 The Bitcoin Core developers
# Distributed under the MIT software license, see the accompanying
# file COPYING or http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php.
"""Test the wallet balance RPC methods."""
from decimal import Decimal
import struct
from test_framework.address import ADDRESS_BCRT1_UNSPENDABLE as ADDRESS_WATCHONLY
from test_framework.blocktools import COINBASE_MATURITY
from test_framework.test_framework import BitcoinTestFramework
from test_framework.util import (
assert_equal,
assert_raises_rpc_error,
)
def create_transactions(node, address, amt, fees):
# Create and sign raw transactions from node to address for amt.
# Creates a transaction for each fee and returns an array
# of the raw transactions.
utxos = [u for u in node.listunspent(0) if u['spendable']]
# Create transactions
inputs = []
ins_total = 0
for utxo in utxos:
inputs.append({"txid": utxo["txid"], "vout": utxo["vout"]})
ins_total += utxo['amount']
if ins_total >= amt + max(fees):
break
# make sure there was enough utxos
assert ins_total >= amt + max(fees)
txs = []
for fee in fees:
outputs = {address: amt}
# prevent 0 change output
if ins_total > amt + fee:
outputs[node.getrawchangeaddress()] = ins_total - amt - fee
raw_tx = node.createrawtransaction(inputs, outputs, 0)
raw_tx = node.signrawtransactionwithwallet(raw_tx)
assert_equal(raw_tx['complete'], True)
txs.append(raw_tx)
return txs
class WalletTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
def set_test_params(self):
self.num_nodes = 2
self.setup_clean_chain = True
self.extra_args = [
['-limitdescendantcount=3'], # Limit mempool descendants as a hack to have wallet txs rejected from the mempool
[],
]
def skip_test_if_missing_module(self):
self.skip_if_no_wallet()
def run_test(self):
self.nodes[0].importaddress(ADDRESS_WATCHONLY)
# Check that nodes don't own any UTXOs
assert_equal(len(self.nodes[0].listunspent()), 0)
assert_equal(len(self.nodes[1].listunspent()), 0)
self.log.info("Check that only node 0 is watching an address")
assert 'watchonly' in self.nodes[0].getbalances()
assert 'watchonly' not in self.nodes[1].getbalances()
self.log.info("Mining blocks ...")
self.nodes[0].generate(1)
self.sync_all()
self.nodes[1].generate(1)
self.nodes[1].generatetoaddress(COINBASE_MATURITY + 1, ADDRESS_WATCHONLY)
self.sync_all()
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getbalances()['mine']['trusted'], 500)
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getwalletinfo()['balance'], 500)
assert_equal(self.nodes[1].getbalances()['mine']['trusted'], 500)
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getbalances()['watchonly']['immature'], 50000)
assert 'watchonly' not in self.nodes[1].getbalances()
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getbalance(), 500)
assert_equal(self.nodes[1].getbalance(), 500)
self.log.info("Test getbalance with different arguments")
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getbalance("*"), 500)
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getbalance("*", 1), 500)
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getbalance("*", 1, True), 500)
Merge #13756: wallet: "avoid_reuse" wallet flag for improved privacy 5ebc6b0eb267e0552c66fffc5e5afe7df8becf80 bitcoind: update -avoidpartialspends description to account for auto-enable for avoid_reuse wallets (Karl-Johan Alm) ada258f8c8f92d44d893cf9f22d15acdeca40b1a doc: release notes for avoid_reuse (Karl-Johan Alm) 27669551da52099e4a6a401acd7aa32b32832423 wallet: enable avoid_partial_spends by default if avoid_reuse is set (Karl-Johan Alm) 8f2e208f7c0468f9ba92bc789a698281b1c81284 test: add test for avoidreuse feature (Karl-Johan Alm) 0bdfbd34cf4015de87741ff549db35e5064f4e16 wallet/rpc: add 'avoid_reuse' option to RPC commands (Karl-Johan Alm) f904723e0d5883309cb0dd14b826bc45c5e776fb wallet/rpc: add setwalletflag RPC and MUTABLE_WALLET_FLAGS (Karl-Johan Alm) 8247a0da3a46d7c38943ee0304343ab7465305bd wallet: enable avoid_reuse feature (Karl-Johan Alm) eec15662fad917b169f5e3b8baaf4301dcf00a7b wallet: avoid reuse flags (Karl-Johan Alm) 58928098c299efdc7c5ddf2dc20716ca5272f21b wallet: make IsWalletFlagSet() const (Karl-Johan Alm) 129a5bafd9a3efa2fa16d780885048a06566d262 wallet: rename g_known_wallet_flags constant to KNOWN_WALLET_FLAGS (Karl-Johan Alm) Pull request description: Add a new wallet flag called `avoid_reuse` which, when enabled, will keep track of when a specific destination has been spent from, and will actively "blacklist" any new UTXOs which send to an already-spent-from destination. This improves privacy, as a payer could otherwise begin tracking a payee's wallet by regularly peppering a known UTXO with dust outputs, which would then be scooped up and used in payments by the payee, allowing the payer to map out (1) the inputs owned by the payee and (2) the destinations to which the payee is making payments. This replaces #10386 and together with the (now merged) #12257 it addresses #10065 in full. The concerns raised in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10386#issuecomment-302361381 are also addressed due to #12257. ~~Note: this builds on top of #15780.~~ (merged) ACKs for commit 5ebc6b: jnewbery: ACK 5ebc6b0eb laanwj: Concept and code-review ACK 5ebc6b0eb267e0552c66fffc5e5afe7df8becf80 meshcollider: Code review ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13756/commits/5ebc6b0eb267e0552c66fffc5e5afe7df8becf80 achow101: ACK 5ebc6b0eb267e0552c66fffc5e5afe7df8becf80 modulo above nits Tree-SHA512: fdef45826af544cbbb45634ac367852cc467ec87081d86d08b53ca849e588617e9a0a255b7e7bb28692d15332de58d6c3d274ac003355220e4213d7d9070742e
2019-06-19 01:32:02 +02:00
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getbalance("*", 1, True, False), 500)
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getbalance(minconf=1, addlocked=True), 500)
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getbalance(minconf=1, avoid_reuse=False), 500)
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getbalance(minconf=1), 500)
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getbalance(minconf=0, include_watchonly=True), 1000)
assert_equal(self.nodes[1].getbalance(minconf=0, include_watchonly=True), 500)
# Send 490 BTC from 0 to 1 and 960 BTC from 1 to 0.
txs = create_transactions(self.nodes[0], self.nodes[1].getnewaddress(), 490 , [Decimal('0.01')])
self.nodes[0].sendrawtransaction(txs[0]['hex'])
self.nodes[1].sendrawtransaction(txs[0]['hex']) # sending on both nodes is faster than waiting for propagation
self.sync_all()
txs = create_transactions(self.nodes[1], self.nodes[0].getnewaddress(), 960, [Decimal('0.01'), Decimal('0.02')])
self.nodes[1].sendrawtransaction(txs[0]['hex'])
self.nodes[0].sendrawtransaction(txs[0]['hex']) # sending on both nodes is faster than waiting for propagation
self.sync_all()
# First argument of getbalance must be set to "*"
assert_raises_rpc_error(-32, "dummy first argument must be excluded or set to \"*\"", self.nodes[1].getbalance, "")
Merge #18451: test: shift coverage from getunconfirmedbalance to getbalances 0306d78cb49d1684cc96ba3512b582a1fdaf78cc Use getbalances in wallet_address_types tests (Jon Atack) 7eacdc5167c8db94df84e206db85817bc64e4921 Shift coverage from getunconfirmedbalance to getbalances in wallet_abandonconflict tests (Jon Atack) 3e6f7377f600e47e5e3d439fc5d6ccf3db210038 Improve getbalances coverage in wallet_balance tests (Jon Atack) Pull request description: <strike>This PR updates several tests and then removes the `getunconfirmedbalance` RPC which was deprecated in facfb4111d14a3b06c46690a2cca7ca91cea8a96 a year ago. Next steps: remove the deprecated `getwalletinfo` fields and the `getbalance` RPC in follow-ups, if there seems to be consensus on those removals.</strike> Update: `getunconfirmedbalance` RPC was deprecated in facfb4111d14a3b06c46690a2cca7ca91cea8a96 a year ago, but following the review comments below, this PR now only updates the test coverage to use `getbalances` while still leaving basic coverage for `getunconfirmedbalance` in wallet_balance.py. That said, I've seen 3 regular contributors confused in the past 10 days by "DEPRECATED" warnings in the code that are not following the deprecation policy in [JSON-RPC-interface.md#versioning](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/JSON-RPC-interface.md#versioning). ISTM these warnings should either be removed, or the calls deprecated (`-deprecatedrpc`), or the policy updated to describe these warnings as a pre-deprecation practice. ACKs for top commit: jnewbery: utACK 0306d78cb Tree-SHA512: 692e43e9bed5afa97d905740666e365f0b64e559e1c75a6a398236d9e943894e3477947fc11324f420a6feaffa0c0c1532aa983c50090ca39d06551399e6ddd1
2020-04-13 23:57:11 +02:00
self.log.info("Test balances with unconfirmed inputs")
Merge #16766: wallet: Make IsTrusted scan parents recursively 4671fc3d9e669da8b8781f0cbefee43cb9acd527 Expand on wallet_balance.py comment from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16766\#issuecomment-527563982 (Jeremy Rubin) 91f3073f08aff395dd813296bf99fd8ccc81bb27 Update release notes to mention changes to IsTrusted and impact on wallet (Jeremy Rubin) 8f174ef112199aa4e98d756039855cc561687c2e Systematize style of IsTrusted single line if (Jeremy Rubin) b49dcbedf79613f0e0f61bfd742ed265213ed280 update variable naming conventions for IsTrusted (Jeremy Rubin) 5ffe0d144923f365cb1c2fad181eca15d1668692 Update comment in test/functional/wallet_balance.py (Jeremy Rubin) a550c58267f50c59c2eea1d46edaa5019a8ad5d8 Update wallet_balance.py test to reflect new behavior (Jeremy Rubin) 5dd7da4ccd1354f09e2d00bab29288db0d5665d0 Reuse trustedParents in looped calls to IsTrusted (Jeremy Rubin) 595f09d6de7f1b94428cdd1310777aa6a4c584e5 Cache tx Trust per-call to avoid DoS (Jeremy Rubin) dce032ce294fe0d531770f540b1de00dc1d13f4b Make IsTrusted scan parents recursively (Jeremy Rubin) Pull request description: This slightly modifies the behavior of IsTrusted to recursively check the parents of a transaction. Otherwise, it's possible that a parent is not IsTrusted but a child is. If a parent is not trusted, then a child should not be either. This recursive scan can be a little expensive, so ~it might be beneficial to have a way of caching IsTrusted state, but this is a little complex because various conditions can change between calls to IsTrusted (e.g., re-org).~ I added a cache which works per call/across calls, but does not store the results semi-permanently. Which reduces DoS risk of this change. There is no risk of untrusted parents causing a resource exploitation, as we immediately return once that is detected. This is a change that came up as a bug-fix esque change while working on OP_SECURETHEBAG. You can see the branch where this change is important here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...JeremyRubin:stb-with-rpc?expand=1. Essentially, without this change, we can be tricked into accepting an OP_SECURETHEBAG output because we don't properly check the parents. As this was a change which, on its own, was not dependent on OP_SECURETHEBAG, I broke it out as I felt the change stands on its own by fixing a long standing wallet bug. The test wallet_balance.py has been corrected to meet the new behavior. The below comment, reproduced, explains what the issue is and the edge cases that can arise before this change. # Before `test_balance()`, we have had two nodes with a balance of 50 # each and then we: # # 1) Sent 40 from node A to node B with fee 0.01 # 2) Sent 60 from node B to node A with fee 0.01 # # Then we check the balances: # # 1) As is # 2) With transaction 2 from above with 2x the fee # # Prior to #16766, in this situation, the node would immediately report # a balance of 30 on node B as unconfirmed and trusted. # # After #16766, we show that balance as unconfirmed. # # The balance is indeed "trusted" and "confirmed" insofar as removing # the mempool transactions would return at least that much money. But # the algorithm after #16766 marks it as unconfirmed because the 'taint' # tracking of transaction trust for summing balances doesn't consider # which inputs belong to a user. In this case, the change output in # question could be "destroyed" by replace the 1st transaction above. # # The post #16766 behavior is correct; we shouldn't be treating those # funds as confirmed. If you want to rely on that specific UTXO existing # which has given you that balance, you cannot, as a third party # spending the other input would destroy that unconfirmed. # # For example, if the test transactions were: # # 1) Sent 40 from node A to node B with fee 0.01 # 2) Sent 10 from node B to node A with fee 0.01 # # Then our node would report a confirmed balance of 40 + 50 - 10 = 80 # BTC, which is more than would be available if transaction 1 were # replaced. The release notes have been updated to note the new behavior. ACKs for top commit: ariard: Code Review ACK 4671fc3, maybe extend DoS protection in a follow-up PR. fjahr: Code review ACK 4671fc3d9e669da8b8781f0cbefee43cb9acd527 ryanofsky: Code review ACK 4671fc3d9e669da8b8781f0cbefee43cb9acd527. Changes since last review: 2 new commits adding suggested release note and python test comment, also a clean rebase with no changes to the earlier commits. The PR description is more comprehensive now, too. Looks good! promag: Code review ACK 4671fc3d9e669da8b8781f0cbefee43cb9acd527. Tree-SHA512: 6b183ff425304fef49724290053514cb2770f4a2350dcb83660ef24af5c54f7c4c2c345b0f62bba60eb2d2f70625ee61a7fab76a7f491bb5a84be5c4cc86b92f
2019-11-05 09:58:47 +01:00
# Before `test_balance()`, we have had two nodes with a balance of 50
# each and then we:
#
# 1) Sent 40 from node A to node B with fee 0.01
# 2) Sent 60 from node B to node A with fee 0.01
#
# Then we check the balances:
#
# 1) As is
# 2) With transaction 2 from above with 2x the fee
#
# Prior to #16766, in this situation, the node would immediately report
# a balance of 30 on node B as unconfirmed and trusted.
#
# After #16766, we show that balance as unconfirmed.
#
# The balance is indeed "trusted" and "confirmed" insofar as removing
# the mempool transactions would return at least that much money. But
# the algorithm after #16766 marks it as unconfirmed because the 'taint'
# tracking of transaction trust for summing balances doesn't consider
# which inputs belong to a user. In this case, the change output in
# question could be "destroyed" by replace the 1st transaction above.
#
# The post #16766 behavior is correct; we shouldn't be treating those
# funds as confirmed. If you want to rely on that specific UTXO existing
# which has given you that balance, you cannot, as a third party
# spending the other input would destroy that unconfirmed.
#
# For example, if the test transactions were:
#
# 1) Sent 40 from node A to node B with fee 0.01
# 2) Sent 10 from node B to node A with fee 0.01
#
# Then our node would report a confirmed balance of 40 + 50 - 10 = 80
# BTC, which is more than would be available if transaction 1 were
# replaced.
def test_balances(*, fee_node_1=0):
Merge #18451: test: shift coverage from getunconfirmedbalance to getbalances 0306d78cb49d1684cc96ba3512b582a1fdaf78cc Use getbalances in wallet_address_types tests (Jon Atack) 7eacdc5167c8db94df84e206db85817bc64e4921 Shift coverage from getunconfirmedbalance to getbalances in wallet_abandonconflict tests (Jon Atack) 3e6f7377f600e47e5e3d439fc5d6ccf3db210038 Improve getbalances coverage in wallet_balance tests (Jon Atack) Pull request description: <strike>This PR updates several tests and then removes the `getunconfirmedbalance` RPC which was deprecated in facfb4111d14a3b06c46690a2cca7ca91cea8a96 a year ago. Next steps: remove the deprecated `getwalletinfo` fields and the `getbalance` RPC in follow-ups, if there seems to be consensus on those removals.</strike> Update: `getunconfirmedbalance` RPC was deprecated in facfb4111d14a3b06c46690a2cca7ca91cea8a96 a year ago, but following the review comments below, this PR now only updates the test coverage to use `getbalances` while still leaving basic coverage for `getunconfirmedbalance` in wallet_balance.py. That said, I've seen 3 regular contributors confused in the past 10 days by "DEPRECATED" warnings in the code that are not following the deprecation policy in [JSON-RPC-interface.md#versioning](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/JSON-RPC-interface.md#versioning). ISTM these warnings should either be removed, or the calls deprecated (`-deprecatedrpc`), or the policy updated to describe these warnings as a pre-deprecation practice. ACKs for top commit: jnewbery: utACK 0306d78cb Tree-SHA512: 692e43e9bed5afa97d905740666e365f0b64e559e1c75a6a398236d9e943894e3477947fc11324f420a6feaffa0c0c1532aa983c50090ca39d06551399e6ddd1
2020-04-13 23:57:11 +02:00
# getbalances
expected_balances_0 = {'mine': {'coinjoin': Decimal('0E-8'),
'immature': Decimal('0E-8'),
'trusted': Decimal('9.99'), # change from node 0's send
'untrusted_pending': Decimal('960')},
'watchonly': {'immature': Decimal('50000'),
'trusted': Decimal('500'),
'untrusted_pending': Decimal('0E-8')}}
expected_balances_1 = {'mine': {'coinjoin': Decimal('0E-8'),
'immature': Decimal('0E-8'),
'trusted': Decimal('0E-8'), # node 1's send had an unsafe input
'untrusted_pending': Decimal('30.0') - fee_node_1}} # Doesn't include output of node 0's send since it was spent
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getbalances(), expected_balances_0)
assert_equal(self.nodes[1].getbalances(), expected_balances_1)
# getbalance without any arguments includes unconfirmed transactions, but not untrusted transactions
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getbalance(), Decimal('9.99')) # change from node 0's send
Merge #16766: wallet: Make IsTrusted scan parents recursively 4671fc3d9e669da8b8781f0cbefee43cb9acd527 Expand on wallet_balance.py comment from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16766\#issuecomment-527563982 (Jeremy Rubin) 91f3073f08aff395dd813296bf99fd8ccc81bb27 Update release notes to mention changes to IsTrusted and impact on wallet (Jeremy Rubin) 8f174ef112199aa4e98d756039855cc561687c2e Systematize style of IsTrusted single line if (Jeremy Rubin) b49dcbedf79613f0e0f61bfd742ed265213ed280 update variable naming conventions for IsTrusted (Jeremy Rubin) 5ffe0d144923f365cb1c2fad181eca15d1668692 Update comment in test/functional/wallet_balance.py (Jeremy Rubin) a550c58267f50c59c2eea1d46edaa5019a8ad5d8 Update wallet_balance.py test to reflect new behavior (Jeremy Rubin) 5dd7da4ccd1354f09e2d00bab29288db0d5665d0 Reuse trustedParents in looped calls to IsTrusted (Jeremy Rubin) 595f09d6de7f1b94428cdd1310777aa6a4c584e5 Cache tx Trust per-call to avoid DoS (Jeremy Rubin) dce032ce294fe0d531770f540b1de00dc1d13f4b Make IsTrusted scan parents recursively (Jeremy Rubin) Pull request description: This slightly modifies the behavior of IsTrusted to recursively check the parents of a transaction. Otherwise, it's possible that a parent is not IsTrusted but a child is. If a parent is not trusted, then a child should not be either. This recursive scan can be a little expensive, so ~it might be beneficial to have a way of caching IsTrusted state, but this is a little complex because various conditions can change between calls to IsTrusted (e.g., re-org).~ I added a cache which works per call/across calls, but does not store the results semi-permanently. Which reduces DoS risk of this change. There is no risk of untrusted parents causing a resource exploitation, as we immediately return once that is detected. This is a change that came up as a bug-fix esque change while working on OP_SECURETHEBAG. You can see the branch where this change is important here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...JeremyRubin:stb-with-rpc?expand=1. Essentially, without this change, we can be tricked into accepting an OP_SECURETHEBAG output because we don't properly check the parents. As this was a change which, on its own, was not dependent on OP_SECURETHEBAG, I broke it out as I felt the change stands on its own by fixing a long standing wallet bug. The test wallet_balance.py has been corrected to meet the new behavior. The below comment, reproduced, explains what the issue is and the edge cases that can arise before this change. # Before `test_balance()`, we have had two nodes with a balance of 50 # each and then we: # # 1) Sent 40 from node A to node B with fee 0.01 # 2) Sent 60 from node B to node A with fee 0.01 # # Then we check the balances: # # 1) As is # 2) With transaction 2 from above with 2x the fee # # Prior to #16766, in this situation, the node would immediately report # a balance of 30 on node B as unconfirmed and trusted. # # After #16766, we show that balance as unconfirmed. # # The balance is indeed "trusted" and "confirmed" insofar as removing # the mempool transactions would return at least that much money. But # the algorithm after #16766 marks it as unconfirmed because the 'taint' # tracking of transaction trust for summing balances doesn't consider # which inputs belong to a user. In this case, the change output in # question could be "destroyed" by replace the 1st transaction above. # # The post #16766 behavior is correct; we shouldn't be treating those # funds as confirmed. If you want to rely on that specific UTXO existing # which has given you that balance, you cannot, as a third party # spending the other input would destroy that unconfirmed. # # For example, if the test transactions were: # # 1) Sent 40 from node A to node B with fee 0.01 # 2) Sent 10 from node B to node A with fee 0.01 # # Then our node would report a confirmed balance of 40 + 50 - 10 = 80 # BTC, which is more than would be available if transaction 1 were # replaced. The release notes have been updated to note the new behavior. ACKs for top commit: ariard: Code Review ACK 4671fc3, maybe extend DoS protection in a follow-up PR. fjahr: Code review ACK 4671fc3d9e669da8b8781f0cbefee43cb9acd527 ryanofsky: Code review ACK 4671fc3d9e669da8b8781f0cbefee43cb9acd527. Changes since last review: 2 new commits adding suggested release note and python test comment, also a clean rebase with no changes to the earlier commits. The PR description is more comprehensive now, too. Looks good! promag: Code review ACK 4671fc3d9e669da8b8781f0cbefee43cb9acd527. Tree-SHA512: 6b183ff425304fef49724290053514cb2770f4a2350dcb83660ef24af5c54f7c4c2c345b0f62bba60eb2d2f70625ee61a7fab76a7f491bb5a84be5c4cc86b92f
2019-11-05 09:58:47 +01:00
assert_equal(self.nodes[1].getbalance(), Decimal('0')) # node 1's send had an unsafe input
# Same with minconf=0
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getbalance(minconf=0), Decimal('9.99'))
Merge #16766: wallet: Make IsTrusted scan parents recursively 4671fc3d9e669da8b8781f0cbefee43cb9acd527 Expand on wallet_balance.py comment from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16766\#issuecomment-527563982 (Jeremy Rubin) 91f3073f08aff395dd813296bf99fd8ccc81bb27 Update release notes to mention changes to IsTrusted and impact on wallet (Jeremy Rubin) 8f174ef112199aa4e98d756039855cc561687c2e Systematize style of IsTrusted single line if (Jeremy Rubin) b49dcbedf79613f0e0f61bfd742ed265213ed280 update variable naming conventions for IsTrusted (Jeremy Rubin) 5ffe0d144923f365cb1c2fad181eca15d1668692 Update comment in test/functional/wallet_balance.py (Jeremy Rubin) a550c58267f50c59c2eea1d46edaa5019a8ad5d8 Update wallet_balance.py test to reflect new behavior (Jeremy Rubin) 5dd7da4ccd1354f09e2d00bab29288db0d5665d0 Reuse trustedParents in looped calls to IsTrusted (Jeremy Rubin) 595f09d6de7f1b94428cdd1310777aa6a4c584e5 Cache tx Trust per-call to avoid DoS (Jeremy Rubin) dce032ce294fe0d531770f540b1de00dc1d13f4b Make IsTrusted scan parents recursively (Jeremy Rubin) Pull request description: This slightly modifies the behavior of IsTrusted to recursively check the parents of a transaction. Otherwise, it's possible that a parent is not IsTrusted but a child is. If a parent is not trusted, then a child should not be either. This recursive scan can be a little expensive, so ~it might be beneficial to have a way of caching IsTrusted state, but this is a little complex because various conditions can change between calls to IsTrusted (e.g., re-org).~ I added a cache which works per call/across calls, but does not store the results semi-permanently. Which reduces DoS risk of this change. There is no risk of untrusted parents causing a resource exploitation, as we immediately return once that is detected. This is a change that came up as a bug-fix esque change while working on OP_SECURETHEBAG. You can see the branch where this change is important here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...JeremyRubin:stb-with-rpc?expand=1. Essentially, without this change, we can be tricked into accepting an OP_SECURETHEBAG output because we don't properly check the parents. As this was a change which, on its own, was not dependent on OP_SECURETHEBAG, I broke it out as I felt the change stands on its own by fixing a long standing wallet bug. The test wallet_balance.py has been corrected to meet the new behavior. The below comment, reproduced, explains what the issue is and the edge cases that can arise before this change. # Before `test_balance()`, we have had two nodes with a balance of 50 # each and then we: # # 1) Sent 40 from node A to node B with fee 0.01 # 2) Sent 60 from node B to node A with fee 0.01 # # Then we check the balances: # # 1) As is # 2) With transaction 2 from above with 2x the fee # # Prior to #16766, in this situation, the node would immediately report # a balance of 30 on node B as unconfirmed and trusted. # # After #16766, we show that balance as unconfirmed. # # The balance is indeed "trusted" and "confirmed" insofar as removing # the mempool transactions would return at least that much money. But # the algorithm after #16766 marks it as unconfirmed because the 'taint' # tracking of transaction trust for summing balances doesn't consider # which inputs belong to a user. In this case, the change output in # question could be "destroyed" by replace the 1st transaction above. # # The post #16766 behavior is correct; we shouldn't be treating those # funds as confirmed. If you want to rely on that specific UTXO existing # which has given you that balance, you cannot, as a third party # spending the other input would destroy that unconfirmed. # # For example, if the test transactions were: # # 1) Sent 40 from node A to node B with fee 0.01 # 2) Sent 10 from node B to node A with fee 0.01 # # Then our node would report a confirmed balance of 40 + 50 - 10 = 80 # BTC, which is more than would be available if transaction 1 were # replaced. The release notes have been updated to note the new behavior. ACKs for top commit: ariard: Code Review ACK 4671fc3, maybe extend DoS protection in a follow-up PR. fjahr: Code review ACK 4671fc3d9e669da8b8781f0cbefee43cb9acd527 ryanofsky: Code review ACK 4671fc3d9e669da8b8781f0cbefee43cb9acd527. Changes since last review: 2 new commits adding suggested release note and python test comment, also a clean rebase with no changes to the earlier commits. The PR description is more comprehensive now, too. Looks good! promag: Code review ACK 4671fc3d9e669da8b8781f0cbefee43cb9acd527. Tree-SHA512: 6b183ff425304fef49724290053514cb2770f4a2350dcb83660ef24af5c54f7c4c2c345b0f62bba60eb2d2f70625ee61a7fab76a7f491bb5a84be5c4cc86b92f
2019-11-05 09:58:47 +01:00
assert_equal(self.nodes[1].getbalance(minconf=0), Decimal('0'))
# getbalance with a minconf incorrectly excludes coins that have been spent more recently than the minconf blocks ago
# TODO: fix getbalance tracking of coin spentness depth
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getbalance(minconf=1), Decimal('0'))
assert_equal(self.nodes[1].getbalance(minconf=1), Decimal('0'))
# getunconfirmedbalance
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getunconfirmedbalance(), Decimal('960')) # output of node 1's spend
Merge #16766: wallet: Make IsTrusted scan parents recursively 4671fc3d9e669da8b8781f0cbefee43cb9acd527 Expand on wallet_balance.py comment from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16766\#issuecomment-527563982 (Jeremy Rubin) 91f3073f08aff395dd813296bf99fd8ccc81bb27 Update release notes to mention changes to IsTrusted and impact on wallet (Jeremy Rubin) 8f174ef112199aa4e98d756039855cc561687c2e Systematize style of IsTrusted single line if (Jeremy Rubin) b49dcbedf79613f0e0f61bfd742ed265213ed280 update variable naming conventions for IsTrusted (Jeremy Rubin) 5ffe0d144923f365cb1c2fad181eca15d1668692 Update comment in test/functional/wallet_balance.py (Jeremy Rubin) a550c58267f50c59c2eea1d46edaa5019a8ad5d8 Update wallet_balance.py test to reflect new behavior (Jeremy Rubin) 5dd7da4ccd1354f09e2d00bab29288db0d5665d0 Reuse trustedParents in looped calls to IsTrusted (Jeremy Rubin) 595f09d6de7f1b94428cdd1310777aa6a4c584e5 Cache tx Trust per-call to avoid DoS (Jeremy Rubin) dce032ce294fe0d531770f540b1de00dc1d13f4b Make IsTrusted scan parents recursively (Jeremy Rubin) Pull request description: This slightly modifies the behavior of IsTrusted to recursively check the parents of a transaction. Otherwise, it's possible that a parent is not IsTrusted but a child is. If a parent is not trusted, then a child should not be either. This recursive scan can be a little expensive, so ~it might be beneficial to have a way of caching IsTrusted state, but this is a little complex because various conditions can change between calls to IsTrusted (e.g., re-org).~ I added a cache which works per call/across calls, but does not store the results semi-permanently. Which reduces DoS risk of this change. There is no risk of untrusted parents causing a resource exploitation, as we immediately return once that is detected. This is a change that came up as a bug-fix esque change while working on OP_SECURETHEBAG. You can see the branch where this change is important here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...JeremyRubin:stb-with-rpc?expand=1. Essentially, without this change, we can be tricked into accepting an OP_SECURETHEBAG output because we don't properly check the parents. As this was a change which, on its own, was not dependent on OP_SECURETHEBAG, I broke it out as I felt the change stands on its own by fixing a long standing wallet bug. The test wallet_balance.py has been corrected to meet the new behavior. The below comment, reproduced, explains what the issue is and the edge cases that can arise before this change. # Before `test_balance()`, we have had two nodes with a balance of 50 # each and then we: # # 1) Sent 40 from node A to node B with fee 0.01 # 2) Sent 60 from node B to node A with fee 0.01 # # Then we check the balances: # # 1) As is # 2) With transaction 2 from above with 2x the fee # # Prior to #16766, in this situation, the node would immediately report # a balance of 30 on node B as unconfirmed and trusted. # # After #16766, we show that balance as unconfirmed. # # The balance is indeed "trusted" and "confirmed" insofar as removing # the mempool transactions would return at least that much money. But # the algorithm after #16766 marks it as unconfirmed because the 'taint' # tracking of transaction trust for summing balances doesn't consider # which inputs belong to a user. In this case, the change output in # question could be "destroyed" by replace the 1st transaction above. # # The post #16766 behavior is correct; we shouldn't be treating those # funds as confirmed. If you want to rely on that specific UTXO existing # which has given you that balance, you cannot, as a third party # spending the other input would destroy that unconfirmed. # # For example, if the test transactions were: # # 1) Sent 40 from node A to node B with fee 0.01 # 2) Sent 10 from node B to node A with fee 0.01 # # Then our node would report a confirmed balance of 40 + 50 - 10 = 80 # BTC, which is more than would be available if transaction 1 were # replaced. The release notes have been updated to note the new behavior. ACKs for top commit: ariard: Code Review ACK 4671fc3, maybe extend DoS protection in a follow-up PR. fjahr: Code review ACK 4671fc3d9e669da8b8781f0cbefee43cb9acd527 ryanofsky: Code review ACK 4671fc3d9e669da8b8781f0cbefee43cb9acd527. Changes since last review: 2 new commits adding suggested release note and python test comment, also a clean rebase with no changes to the earlier commits. The PR description is more comprehensive now, too. Looks good! promag: Code review ACK 4671fc3d9e669da8b8781f0cbefee43cb9acd527. Tree-SHA512: 6b183ff425304fef49724290053514cb2770f4a2350dcb83660ef24af5c54f7c4c2c345b0f62bba60eb2d2f70625ee61a7fab76a7f491bb5a84be5c4cc86b92f
2019-11-05 09:58:47 +01:00
assert_equal(self.nodes[1].getunconfirmedbalance(), Decimal('30') - fee_node_1) # Doesn't include output of node 0's send since it was spent
Merge #18451: test: shift coverage from getunconfirmedbalance to getbalances 0306d78cb49d1684cc96ba3512b582a1fdaf78cc Use getbalances in wallet_address_types tests (Jon Atack) 7eacdc5167c8db94df84e206db85817bc64e4921 Shift coverage from getunconfirmedbalance to getbalances in wallet_abandonconflict tests (Jon Atack) 3e6f7377f600e47e5e3d439fc5d6ccf3db210038 Improve getbalances coverage in wallet_balance tests (Jon Atack) Pull request description: <strike>This PR updates several tests and then removes the `getunconfirmedbalance` RPC which was deprecated in facfb4111d14a3b06c46690a2cca7ca91cea8a96 a year ago. Next steps: remove the deprecated `getwalletinfo` fields and the `getbalance` RPC in follow-ups, if there seems to be consensus on those removals.</strike> Update: `getunconfirmedbalance` RPC was deprecated in facfb4111d14a3b06c46690a2cca7ca91cea8a96 a year ago, but following the review comments below, this PR now only updates the test coverage to use `getbalances` while still leaving basic coverage for `getunconfirmedbalance` in wallet_balance.py. That said, I've seen 3 regular contributors confused in the past 10 days by "DEPRECATED" warnings in the code that are not following the deprecation policy in [JSON-RPC-interface.md#versioning](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/JSON-RPC-interface.md#versioning). ISTM these warnings should either be removed, or the calls deprecated (`-deprecatedrpc`), or the policy updated to describe these warnings as a pre-deprecation practice. ACKs for top commit: jnewbery: utACK 0306d78cb Tree-SHA512: 692e43e9bed5afa97d905740666e365f0b64e559e1c75a6a398236d9e943894e3477947fc11324f420a6feaffa0c0c1532aa983c50090ca39d06551399e6ddd1
2020-04-13 23:57:11 +02:00
# getwalletinfo.unconfirmed_balance
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getwalletinfo()["unconfirmed_balance"], Decimal('960'))
Merge #16766: wallet: Make IsTrusted scan parents recursively 4671fc3d9e669da8b8781f0cbefee43cb9acd527 Expand on wallet_balance.py comment from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16766\#issuecomment-527563982 (Jeremy Rubin) 91f3073f08aff395dd813296bf99fd8ccc81bb27 Update release notes to mention changes to IsTrusted and impact on wallet (Jeremy Rubin) 8f174ef112199aa4e98d756039855cc561687c2e Systematize style of IsTrusted single line if (Jeremy Rubin) b49dcbedf79613f0e0f61bfd742ed265213ed280 update variable naming conventions for IsTrusted (Jeremy Rubin) 5ffe0d144923f365cb1c2fad181eca15d1668692 Update comment in test/functional/wallet_balance.py (Jeremy Rubin) a550c58267f50c59c2eea1d46edaa5019a8ad5d8 Update wallet_balance.py test to reflect new behavior (Jeremy Rubin) 5dd7da4ccd1354f09e2d00bab29288db0d5665d0 Reuse trustedParents in looped calls to IsTrusted (Jeremy Rubin) 595f09d6de7f1b94428cdd1310777aa6a4c584e5 Cache tx Trust per-call to avoid DoS (Jeremy Rubin) dce032ce294fe0d531770f540b1de00dc1d13f4b Make IsTrusted scan parents recursively (Jeremy Rubin) Pull request description: This slightly modifies the behavior of IsTrusted to recursively check the parents of a transaction. Otherwise, it's possible that a parent is not IsTrusted but a child is. If a parent is not trusted, then a child should not be either. This recursive scan can be a little expensive, so ~it might be beneficial to have a way of caching IsTrusted state, but this is a little complex because various conditions can change between calls to IsTrusted (e.g., re-org).~ I added a cache which works per call/across calls, but does not store the results semi-permanently. Which reduces DoS risk of this change. There is no risk of untrusted parents causing a resource exploitation, as we immediately return once that is detected. This is a change that came up as a bug-fix esque change while working on OP_SECURETHEBAG. You can see the branch where this change is important here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...JeremyRubin:stb-with-rpc?expand=1. Essentially, without this change, we can be tricked into accepting an OP_SECURETHEBAG output because we don't properly check the parents. As this was a change which, on its own, was not dependent on OP_SECURETHEBAG, I broke it out as I felt the change stands on its own by fixing a long standing wallet bug. The test wallet_balance.py has been corrected to meet the new behavior. The below comment, reproduced, explains what the issue is and the edge cases that can arise before this change. # Before `test_balance()`, we have had two nodes with a balance of 50 # each and then we: # # 1) Sent 40 from node A to node B with fee 0.01 # 2) Sent 60 from node B to node A with fee 0.01 # # Then we check the balances: # # 1) As is # 2) With transaction 2 from above with 2x the fee # # Prior to #16766, in this situation, the node would immediately report # a balance of 30 on node B as unconfirmed and trusted. # # After #16766, we show that balance as unconfirmed. # # The balance is indeed "trusted" and "confirmed" insofar as removing # the mempool transactions would return at least that much money. But # the algorithm after #16766 marks it as unconfirmed because the 'taint' # tracking of transaction trust for summing balances doesn't consider # which inputs belong to a user. In this case, the change output in # question could be "destroyed" by replace the 1st transaction above. # # The post #16766 behavior is correct; we shouldn't be treating those # funds as confirmed. If you want to rely on that specific UTXO existing # which has given you that balance, you cannot, as a third party # spending the other input would destroy that unconfirmed. # # For example, if the test transactions were: # # 1) Sent 40 from node A to node B with fee 0.01 # 2) Sent 10 from node B to node A with fee 0.01 # # Then our node would report a confirmed balance of 40 + 50 - 10 = 80 # BTC, which is more than would be available if transaction 1 were # replaced. The release notes have been updated to note the new behavior. ACKs for top commit: ariard: Code Review ACK 4671fc3, maybe extend DoS protection in a follow-up PR. fjahr: Code review ACK 4671fc3d9e669da8b8781f0cbefee43cb9acd527 ryanofsky: Code review ACK 4671fc3d9e669da8b8781f0cbefee43cb9acd527. Changes since last review: 2 new commits adding suggested release note and python test comment, also a clean rebase with no changes to the earlier commits. The PR description is more comprehensive now, too. Looks good! promag: Code review ACK 4671fc3d9e669da8b8781f0cbefee43cb9acd527. Tree-SHA512: 6b183ff425304fef49724290053514cb2770f4a2350dcb83660ef24af5c54f7c4c2c345b0f62bba60eb2d2f70625ee61a7fab76a7f491bb5a84be5c4cc86b92f
2019-11-05 09:58:47 +01:00
assert_equal(self.nodes[1].getwalletinfo()["unconfirmed_balance"], Decimal('30') - fee_node_1)
test_balances(fee_node_1=Decimal('0.01'))
# Node 1 bumps the transaction fee and resends
# self.nodes[1].sendrawtransaction(txs[1]['hex']) # disabled, no RBF in Dash
#self.nodes[0].sendrawtransaction(txs[1]['hex']) # sending on both nodes is faster than waiting for propagation # disabled, no RBF in Dash
self.sync_all()
Merge #18451: test: shift coverage from getunconfirmedbalance to getbalances 0306d78cb49d1684cc96ba3512b582a1fdaf78cc Use getbalances in wallet_address_types tests (Jon Atack) 7eacdc5167c8db94df84e206db85817bc64e4921 Shift coverage from getunconfirmedbalance to getbalances in wallet_abandonconflict tests (Jon Atack) 3e6f7377f600e47e5e3d439fc5d6ccf3db210038 Improve getbalances coverage in wallet_balance tests (Jon Atack) Pull request description: <strike>This PR updates several tests and then removes the `getunconfirmedbalance` RPC which was deprecated in facfb4111d14a3b06c46690a2cca7ca91cea8a96 a year ago. Next steps: remove the deprecated `getwalletinfo` fields and the `getbalance` RPC in follow-ups, if there seems to be consensus on those removals.</strike> Update: `getunconfirmedbalance` RPC was deprecated in facfb4111d14a3b06c46690a2cca7ca91cea8a96 a year ago, but following the review comments below, this PR now only updates the test coverage to use `getbalances` while still leaving basic coverage for `getunconfirmedbalance` in wallet_balance.py. That said, I've seen 3 regular contributors confused in the past 10 days by "DEPRECATED" warnings in the code that are not following the deprecation policy in [JSON-RPC-interface.md#versioning](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/JSON-RPC-interface.md#versioning). ISTM these warnings should either be removed, or the calls deprecated (`-deprecatedrpc`), or the policy updated to describe these warnings as a pre-deprecation practice. ACKs for top commit: jnewbery: utACK 0306d78cb Tree-SHA512: 692e43e9bed5afa97d905740666e365f0b64e559e1c75a6a398236d9e943894e3477947fc11324f420a6feaffa0c0c1532aa983c50090ca39d06551399e6ddd1
2020-04-13 23:57:11 +02:00
self.log.info("Test getbalance and getbalances.mine.untrusted_pending with conflicted unconfirmed inputs")
# test_balances(fee_node_1=Decimal('0.02')) # disabled, no RBF in Dash
self.nodes[1].generatetoaddress(1, ADDRESS_WATCHONLY)
self.sync_all()
# balances are correct after the transactions are confirmed
Merge #18451: test: shift coverage from getunconfirmedbalance to getbalances 0306d78cb49d1684cc96ba3512b582a1fdaf78cc Use getbalances in wallet_address_types tests (Jon Atack) 7eacdc5167c8db94df84e206db85817bc64e4921 Shift coverage from getunconfirmedbalance to getbalances in wallet_abandonconflict tests (Jon Atack) 3e6f7377f600e47e5e3d439fc5d6ccf3db210038 Improve getbalances coverage in wallet_balance tests (Jon Atack) Pull request description: <strike>This PR updates several tests and then removes the `getunconfirmedbalance` RPC which was deprecated in facfb4111d14a3b06c46690a2cca7ca91cea8a96 a year ago. Next steps: remove the deprecated `getwalletinfo` fields and the `getbalance` RPC in follow-ups, if there seems to be consensus on those removals.</strike> Update: `getunconfirmedbalance` RPC was deprecated in facfb4111d14a3b06c46690a2cca7ca91cea8a96 a year ago, but following the review comments below, this PR now only updates the test coverage to use `getbalances` while still leaving basic coverage for `getunconfirmedbalance` in wallet_balance.py. That said, I've seen 3 regular contributors confused in the past 10 days by "DEPRECATED" warnings in the code that are not following the deprecation policy in [JSON-RPC-interface.md#versioning](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/JSON-RPC-interface.md#versioning). ISTM these warnings should either be removed, or the calls deprecated (`-deprecatedrpc`), or the policy updated to describe these warnings as a pre-deprecation practice. ACKs for top commit: jnewbery: utACK 0306d78cb Tree-SHA512: 692e43e9bed5afa97d905740666e365f0b64e559e1c75a6a398236d9e943894e3477947fc11324f420a6feaffa0c0c1532aa983c50090ca39d06551399e6ddd1
2020-04-13 23:57:11 +02:00
balance_node0 = Decimal('969.99') # node 1's send plus change from node 0's send
balance_node1 = Decimal('29.99') # change from node 0's send
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getbalances()['mine']['trusted'], balance_node0)
assert_equal(self.nodes[1].getbalances()['mine']['trusted'], balance_node1)
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getbalance(), balance_node0)
assert_equal(self.nodes[1].getbalance(), balance_node1)
# Send total balance away from node 1
txs = create_transactions(self.nodes[1], self.nodes[0].getnewaddress(), Decimal('29.98'), [Decimal('0.01')])
self.nodes[1].sendrawtransaction(txs[0]['hex'])
self.nodes[1].generatetoaddress(2, ADDRESS_WATCHONLY)
self.sync_all()
# getbalance with a minconf incorrectly excludes coins that have been spent more recently than the minconf blocks ago
# TODO: fix getbalance tracking of coin spentness depth
# getbalance with minconf=3 should still show the old balance
assert_equal(self.nodes[1].getbalance(minconf=3), Decimal('0'))
# getbalance with minconf=2 will show the new balance.
assert_equal(self.nodes[1].getbalance(minconf=2), Decimal('0'))
# check mempool transactions count for wallet unconfirmed balance after
# dynamically loading the wallet.
Merge #18451: test: shift coverage from getunconfirmedbalance to getbalances 0306d78cb49d1684cc96ba3512b582a1fdaf78cc Use getbalances in wallet_address_types tests (Jon Atack) 7eacdc5167c8db94df84e206db85817bc64e4921 Shift coverage from getunconfirmedbalance to getbalances in wallet_abandonconflict tests (Jon Atack) 3e6f7377f600e47e5e3d439fc5d6ccf3db210038 Improve getbalances coverage in wallet_balance tests (Jon Atack) Pull request description: <strike>This PR updates several tests and then removes the `getunconfirmedbalance` RPC which was deprecated in facfb4111d14a3b06c46690a2cca7ca91cea8a96 a year ago. Next steps: remove the deprecated `getwalletinfo` fields and the `getbalance` RPC in follow-ups, if there seems to be consensus on those removals.</strike> Update: `getunconfirmedbalance` RPC was deprecated in facfb4111d14a3b06c46690a2cca7ca91cea8a96 a year ago, but following the review comments below, this PR now only updates the test coverage to use `getbalances` while still leaving basic coverage for `getunconfirmedbalance` in wallet_balance.py. That said, I've seen 3 regular contributors confused in the past 10 days by "DEPRECATED" warnings in the code that are not following the deprecation policy in [JSON-RPC-interface.md#versioning](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/JSON-RPC-interface.md#versioning). ISTM these warnings should either be removed, or the calls deprecated (`-deprecatedrpc`), or the policy updated to describe these warnings as a pre-deprecation practice. ACKs for top commit: jnewbery: utACK 0306d78cb Tree-SHA512: 692e43e9bed5afa97d905740666e365f0b64e559e1c75a6a398236d9e943894e3477947fc11324f420a6feaffa0c0c1532aa983c50090ca39d06551399e6ddd1
2020-04-13 23:57:11 +02:00
before = self.nodes[1].getbalances()['mine']['untrusted_pending']
dst = self.nodes[1].getnewaddress()
self.nodes[1].unloadwallet(self.default_wallet_name)
self.nodes[0].sendtoaddress(dst, 0.1)
self.sync_all()
self.nodes[1].loadwallet(self.default_wallet_name)
Merge #18451: test: shift coverage from getunconfirmedbalance to getbalances 0306d78cb49d1684cc96ba3512b582a1fdaf78cc Use getbalances in wallet_address_types tests (Jon Atack) 7eacdc5167c8db94df84e206db85817bc64e4921 Shift coverage from getunconfirmedbalance to getbalances in wallet_abandonconflict tests (Jon Atack) 3e6f7377f600e47e5e3d439fc5d6ccf3db210038 Improve getbalances coverage in wallet_balance tests (Jon Atack) Pull request description: <strike>This PR updates several tests and then removes the `getunconfirmedbalance` RPC which was deprecated in facfb4111d14a3b06c46690a2cca7ca91cea8a96 a year ago. Next steps: remove the deprecated `getwalletinfo` fields and the `getbalance` RPC in follow-ups, if there seems to be consensus on those removals.</strike> Update: `getunconfirmedbalance` RPC was deprecated in facfb4111d14a3b06c46690a2cca7ca91cea8a96 a year ago, but following the review comments below, this PR now only updates the test coverage to use `getbalances` while still leaving basic coverage for `getunconfirmedbalance` in wallet_balance.py. That said, I've seen 3 regular contributors confused in the past 10 days by "DEPRECATED" warnings in the code that are not following the deprecation policy in [JSON-RPC-interface.md#versioning](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/JSON-RPC-interface.md#versioning). ISTM these warnings should either be removed, or the calls deprecated (`-deprecatedrpc`), or the policy updated to describe these warnings as a pre-deprecation practice. ACKs for top commit: jnewbery: utACK 0306d78cb Tree-SHA512: 692e43e9bed5afa97d905740666e365f0b64e559e1c75a6a398236d9e943894e3477947fc11324f420a6feaffa0c0c1532aa983c50090ca39d06551399e6ddd1
2020-04-13 23:57:11 +02:00
after = self.nodes[1].getbalances()['mine']['untrusted_pending']
assert_equal(before + Decimal('0.1'), after)
# Create 3 more wallet txs, where the last is not accepted to the
# mempool because it is the third descendant of the tx above
for _ in range(3):
# Set amount high enough such that all coins are spent by each tx
txid = self.nodes[0].sendtoaddress(self.nodes[0].getnewaddress(), 999)
self.log.info('Check that wallet txs not in the mempool are untrusted')
assert txid not in self.nodes[0].getrawmempool()
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].gettransaction(txid)['trusted'], False)
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getbalance(minconf=0), 0)
self.log.info("Test replacement and reorg of non-mempool tx")
tx_orig = self.nodes[0].gettransaction(txid)['hex']
# Increase fee by 1 coin
tx_replace = tx_orig.replace(
struct.pack("<q", 999 * 10**8).hex(),
struct.pack("<q", 998 * 10**8).hex(),
)
tx_replace = self.nodes[0].signrawtransactionwithwallet(tx_replace)['hex']
# Total balance is given by the sum of outputs of the tx
total_amount = sum([o['value'] for o in self.nodes[0].decoderawtransaction(tx_replace)['vout']])
self.sync_all()
self.nodes[1].sendrawtransaction(hexstring=tx_replace, maxfeerate=0)
# Now confirm tx_replace
block_reorg = self.nodes[1].generatetoaddress(1, ADDRESS_WATCHONLY)[0]
self.sync_all()
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getbalance(minconf=0), total_amount)
self.log.info('Put txs back into mempool of node 1 (not node 0)')
self.nodes[0].invalidateblock(block_reorg)
self.nodes[1].invalidateblock(block_reorg)
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getbalance(minconf=0), 0) # wallet txs not in the mempool are untrusted
self.nodes[0].generatetoaddress(1, ADDRESS_WATCHONLY)
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getbalance(minconf=0), 0) # wallet txs not in the mempool are untrusted
# Now confirm tx_orig
self.restart_node(1, ['-persistmempool=0', '-checklevel=0'])
self.connect_nodes(0, 1)
self.connect_nodes(1, 0)
self.sync_blocks()
self.nodes[1].sendrawtransaction(tx_orig)
self.nodes[1].generatetoaddress(1, ADDRESS_WATCHONLY)
self.sync_all()
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getbalance(minconf=0), total_amount + 1) # The reorg recovered our fee of 1 coin
if __name__ == '__main__':
WalletTest().main()