d841301010914203fb5ef02627c76fad99cb11f1 test: Add docstring to wait_until() in util.py to warn about its usage (Seleme Topuz)
1343c86c7cc1fc896696b3ed87c12039e4ef3a0c test: Update wait_until usage in tests not to use the one from utils (Seleme Topuz)
Pull request description:
Replace global (from [test_framework/util.py](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/test/functional/test_framework/util.py#L228)) `wait_until()` usages with the ones provided by `BitcoinTestFramework` and `P2PInterface` classes.
The motivation behind this change is that the `util.wait_until()` expects a timeout, timeout_factor and lock and it is not aware of the context of the test framework. `BitcoinTestFramework` offers a `wait_until()` which has an understandable amount of default `timeout` and a shared `timeout_factor`. Moreover, on top of these, `mininode.wait_until()` also has a shared lock.
closes#19080
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK d841301010914203fb5ef02627c76fad99cb11f1 🦆
kallewoof:
utACK d841301010914203fb5ef02627c76fad99cb11f1
Tree-SHA512: 81604f4cfa87fed98071a80e4afe940b3897fe65cf680a69619a93e97d45f25b313c12227de7040e19517fa9c003291b232f1b40b2567aba0148f22c23c47a88
d5800da5199527a366024bc80cad7fcca17d5c4a [test] Remove final references to mininode (John Newbery)
5e8df3312e47a73e747ee892face55ed9ababeea test: resort imports (John Newbery)
85165d4332b0f72d30e0c584b476249b542338e6 scripted-diff: Rename mininode to p2p (John Newbery)
9e2897d020b114a10c860f90c5405be029afddba scripted-diff: Rename mininode_lock to p2p_lock (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
New contributors are often confused by the terminology in the test framework, and what the difference between a _node_ and a _peer_ is. To summarize:
- a 'node' is a bitcoind instance. This is the thing whose behavior is being tested. Each bitcoind node is managed by a python `TestNode` object which is used to start/stop the node, manage the node's data directory, read state about the node (eg process status, log file), and interact with the node over different interfaces.
- one of the interfaces that we can use to interact with the node is the p2p interface. Each connection to a node using this interface is managed by a python `P2PInterface` or derived object (which is owned by the `TestNode` object). We can open zero, one or many p2p connections to each bitcoind node. The node sees these connections as 'peers'.
For historic reasons, the word 'mininode' has been used to refer to those p2p interface objects that we use to connect to the bitcoind node (the code was originally taken from the 'mini-node' branch of https://github.com/jgarzik/pynode/tree/mini-node). However that name has proved to be confusing for new contributors, so rename the remaining references.
ACKs for top commit:
amitiuttarwar:
ACK d5800da519
MarcoFalke:
ACK d5800da5199527a366024bc80cad7fcca17d5c4a 🚞
Tree-SHA512: 2c46c2ac3c4278b6e3c647cfd8108428a41e80788fc4f0e386e5b0c47675bc687d94779496c09a3e5ea1319617295be10c422adeeff2d2bd68378e00e0eeb5de
a512925e19a70d7f6b80ac530a169f45ffaafa1c [doc] Release notes (Amiti Uttarwar)
50f94b34a33c954f6e207f509c93d33267a5c3e2 [rpc] Deprecate getpeerinfo addnode field (Amiti Uttarwar)
df091b9b509f0b10e4315c0bfa2da0cc0c31c22f [refactor] Rename test file to allow any getpeerinfo deprecations. (Amiti Uttarwar)
395acfa83a5436790c1a722a5609ac9d48df235f [rpc] Add connection type to getpeerinfo RPC, update tests (Amiti Uttarwar)
49c10a9ca40967d28ae16dfea9cccc6f3a6624a1 [log] Add connection type to log statement (Amiti Uttarwar)
Pull request description:
After #19316, we can more directly expose information about the connection type on the `getpeerinfo` RPC. Doing so also makes the existing addnode field redundant, so this PR begins the process of deprecating this field.
This PR also includes one commit that improves a log message, as both use a shared function to return the connection type as a string.
Suggested by sdaftuar- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19316#discussion_r468001604 & https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19316#discussion_r468018093
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
Code review ACK a512925e19a70d7f6b80ac530a169f45ffaafa1c.
sipa:
utACK a512925e19a70d7f6b80ac530a169f45ffaafa1c
guggero:
Tested and code review ACK a512925e.
MarcoFalke:
cr ACK a512925e19a70d7f6b80ac530a169f45ffaafa1c 🌇
promag:
Code review ACK a512925e19a70d7f6b80ac530a169f45ffaafa1c.
Tree-SHA512: 601a7a38aee235ee59aca690784f886dc2ae4e418b2e6422c4b58cd597376c00f74910f66920b08a08a0bec28bf8022e71a1435785ff6ba8a188954261aba78e
aaaaad6ac95b402fe18d019d67897ced6b316ee0 scripted-diff: Bump copyright of files changed in 2019 (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK aaaaad6ac95b402fe18d019d67897ced6b316ee0
promag:
ACK aaaaad6ac95b402fe18d019d67897ced6b316ee0 🎉
fanquake:
ACK aaaaad6ac95b402fe18d019d67897ced6b316ee0 - going to merge this now because the year is over and conflicts are minimal.
Tree-SHA512: 58cb1f53bc4c1395b2766f36fabc7e2332e213780a802762fff0afd59468dad0c3265f553714d761c7a2c44ff90f7dc250f04458f4b2eb8eef8b94f8c9891321
9c23ebd6b18fb1058a8d3e8aae9e0595d3a57ad5 qa: Fix service flag comparison check in rpc_net test (Luke Dashjr)
Pull request description:
Rebase of #16936
ACKs for top commit:
darosior:
ACK 9c23ebd6b18fb1058a8d3e8aae9e0595d3a57ad5
Tree-SHA512: 74f287740403da1040ab1e235ef6eba4e304f3ee5d57a3b25d1e2e1f2f982d256528d398a4d6cb24ba393798e680a8f46cd7dae54ed84ab2c747e96288f1f884
fa5f46600fb98f1b35346bedc1a66c9019d01114 test: Fix rpc_net intermittent issue (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Without the sync, the nodes might generate blocks at the same height and thus never be able to sync
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK fa5f46600fb98f1b35346bedc1a66c9019d01114: patch looks correct
Tree-SHA512: 21255795c2121c71fc620beb766855e57c7af94a668331d1b625665e22eb4b485a2b5c3ad2bb9a7042744f3c3e49c71251bcec41ba25bca03fd54aae32968a3a
a51d0ad2de89b9757d158df95ddeba2bfcb23935 rpc: Improve addnode remove command error message (Fabian Jahr)
Pull request description:
The `addnode` RPC with the `remove` command parameter is used to remove a node from the "added nodes". It did not have test coverage and in case of failure to remove the node it responded with the confusing message "Error: Node has not been added.".
This PR adds test coverage and introduces a new error code as well as changes the error message to something that makes sense.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK a51d0ad2de89b9757d158df95ddeba2bfcb23935
theStack:
Tested ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/a51d0ad2de
Tree-SHA512: 033ef5de0d4d49d58ef4df3759b838c9d19ee9dfb0aff9f814a3a63d124ca231a442c930efa7d343fe1f65727c4b59fc23dd5e26fe6ea69f9e84fda48b5c5cc2
* Compressed headers implementation.
First header is always compressed in a headers2 msg
Version is uncompressed if it’s not matched within the last 7 unique versions to be sent in the current msg
Service flag to signal that the peer supports compressed headers
If compressed headers services is active, the peer will receive headers compressed
If both sendheaders and sendheaders2 are sent, the peer will respond with compressed headers
Functional tests as for uncompressed headers
Updates regarding the existing functional tests to use the compressed headers if the NODE_HEADERS_COMPRESSED service flag is active
* style: add missing comma
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
fa1433ac1be8481f08c1a0a311a6b87d8a874c6a rpc: Remove special case for unknown service flags (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
The special case to return a bit as an integer is clumsy and undocumented. Probably also irrelevant because there shouldn't currently be a non-misbehaving client that connects to Bitcoin Core and advertises an unknown service flag.
Thus, simply remove the code.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK fa1433ac1be8481f08c1a0a311a6b87d8a874c6a
Tree-SHA512: 942de6a577a9ee076ce12c92be121617640d53ee8c3424064c45a30a7ff789555d3722a4203670768faf81da2a40adfed3ec5cdeb5da06f04be81ddb53b9db7e
fadfd844de8c53034a97dfa6f771ffe9f523fba2 test: Remove unused connect_nodes_bi (MarcoFalke)
fa3b9ee8b2280af4bcbcfffff275aaf8dd125929 scripted-diff: test: Replace connect_nodes_bi with connect_nodes (MarcoFalke)
faaee1e39a91b3f603881655d3980c29af09852b test: Use connect_nodes when connecting nodes in the test_framework (MarcoFalke)
1111bb91f517838e5b9f778bf6b5a9c8d561e857 test: Reformat python imports to aid scripted diff (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
By default all test nodes are connected in a chain. However, instead of just a single connection between each pair of nodes, we end up with up to four connections for a "middle" node (two outbound, two inbound, from each side).
This is generally redundant (tx and block relay should succeed with just a single connection) and confusing. For example, test timeouts after a call to `sync_` may be racy and hard to reproduce. On top of that, the test `debug.log`s are hard to read because txs and block invs may be relayed on the same connection multiple times.
Fix this by inlining `connect_nodes_bi` in the two tests that need it, and then replace it with a single `connect_nodes` in all other tests.
Historic background:
`connect_nodes_bi` has been introduced as a (temporary?) workaround for bug #5113 and #5138, which has long been fixed in #5157 and #5662.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK fadfd844de8c53034a97dfa6f771ffe9f523fba2
jonasschnelli:
utACK fadfd844de8c53034a97dfa6f771ffe9f523fba2 - more of less a cleanup PR.
promag:
Tested ACK fadfd844de8c53034a97dfa6f771ffe9f523fba2, ran extended tests.
Tree-SHA512: 2d027a8fd150749c071b64438a0a78ec922178628a7dbb89fd1212b0fa34febd451798c940101155d3617c0426c2c4865174147709894f1f1bb6cfa336aa7e24
a2eb6f5405 [rpc] Add getnodeaddresses RPC command (chris-belcher)
Pull request description:
Implements issue https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9463
New getnodeaddresses call gives access via RPC to the peers known by the node. It may be useful for bitcoin wallets to broadcast their transactions over tor for improved privacy without using the centralized DNS seeds. getnodeaddresses is very similar to the getaddr p2p method.
Please advise me on the best approach for writing an automated test. By my reading the getaddr p2p method also isn't really tested.
Tree-SHA512: ad03abf518847476495b76a2f5394b8030aa86654429167fa618e21460abb505c10ef9817ec1b80472320d41d0aff5dc94a8efce023aaaaf5e81386aa92b852b
Co-authored-by: MarcoFalke <falke.marco@gmail.com>
fa0815c300 rpc: Correctly name arguments (Jon Layton)
Pull request description:
Consistently use the same name to describe arguments in the documentation and add a test that uses the name.
By splitting it up, the changes are easier to potentially backport and also make review easier when we switch to `RPCHelpMan`.
The tests should pass with or without the changes in `src`.
Partly stolen from #14459 (More RPC help description fixes by ch4ot1c)
Tree-SHA512: 1072992b1e93ac41006613523e54a0a8004f529fcb101eb9d74d91474abb0945a5a7539f249905151b904b87448f9efc0cacbd9e052fbe2ea9111e62f3e7249c
* Merge #11796: [tests] Functional test naming convention
5fecd84 [tests] Remove redundant import in blocktools.py test (Anthony Towns)
9b20bb4 [tests] Check tests conform to naming convention (Anthony Towns)
7250b4e [tests] README.md nit fixes (Anthony Towns)
82b2712 [tests] move witness util functions to blocktools.py (John Newbery)
1e10854 [tests] [docs] update README for new test naming scheme (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
Splitting #11774 into two parts -- this part updates the README with the proposed naming convention, and adds some checks to test_runner.py that the number of tests violating the naming convention doesn't increase too much. Idea is this part of the change should not introduce merge conflicts or require much rebasing, so reviews of the complicated bits won't become invalidated too often; while the second part will just be file renames, which will require regular rebasing and will introduce merge conflicts with pending PRs, but can be merged later, and should also be much easier to review, since it will only include relatively trivial changes.
Tree-SHA512: b96557d41714addbbfe2aed62fb5a48639eaeb1eb3aba30ac1b3a86bb3cb8d796c6247f9c414c4695c4bf54c0ec9968ac88e2f88fb62483bc1a2f89368f7fc80
* update violation count
Signed-off-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
* Merge #11774: [tests] Rename functional tests
6f881cc880 [tests] Remove EXPECTED_VIOLATION_COUNT (Anthony Towns)
3150b3fea7 [tests] Rename misc functional tests. (Anthony Towns)
81b79f2c39 [tests] Rename rpc_* functional tests. (Anthony Towns)
61b8f7f273 [tests] Rename p2p_* functional tests. (Anthony Towns)
90600bc7db [tests] Rename wallet_* functional tests. (Anthony Towns)
ca6523d0c8 [tests] Rename feature_* functional tests. (Anthony Towns)
Pull request description:
This PR changes the functional tests to have a consistent naming scheme:
tests for individual RPC methods are named rpc_...
tests for interfaces (REST, ZMQ, RPC features) are named interface_...
tests that explicitly test the p2p interface are named p2p_...
tests for wallet features are named wallet_...
tests for mining features are named mining_...
tests for mempool behaviour are named mempool_...
tests for full features that aren't wallet/mining/mempool are named feature_...
Rationale: it's sometimes difficult for new contributors to know what's already covered by existing tests and where new tests should be added. Naming in a consistent fashion makes it easier to see what's already covered at a glance.
Tree-SHA512: 4246790552d42bbd95f6d5bdf67702b81b3b2c583ce7eaf1fe6d8e254721279b47315973c6e9ae82dad6e4c747f12188160764bf2624c0f8f3b4d39330ec8b16
* rename tests and edit associated strings to align test-suite with test name standards
Signed-off-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
* fix grammar in test/functional/test_runner.py
Co-authored-by: dustinface <35775977+xdustinface@users.noreply.github.com>
* ci: Fix excluded test names
* rename feature_privatesend.py to rpc_privatesend.py
Signed-off-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
Co-authored-by: Wladimir J. van der Laan <laanwj@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: MarcoFalke <falke.marco@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: dustinface <35775977+xdustinface@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: xdustinface <xdustinfacex@gmail.com>
