- added a few fixme notes where necessary
- for some reason the given internal_key from upstream has a different
parity, causing verifytaprootcommitment to fail... which is why the
internal_key has been changed
- fixed up the rpc_blockchain test
If no `from_node` parameter is passed explicitely to the
`create_self_transfer` method, the test node passed in the course
of creating the MiniWallet instance is used. This seems to
be the main use-case in most of the current functional
tests, i.e. in many instances the calls can be shortened.
The test currently leads to a failure if in general wallet
support is compiled, but the library for the specified type
(BDB/SQLite) is not, i.e. if started with the
`--legacy-wallet` parameter, but bitcoind is compiled
without BDB support.
Fix this by checking if the specified wallet type (BDB for
legacy wallet, SQLite for descriptor wallet) is available.
Also move the helper `is_specified_wallet_compiled()` to the
test framework's class BitcoinTestFramework first, so it can
be reused.
The previous diff touched most files in ./test/, so bump the headers to
avoid having to touch them again for a bump later.
-BEGIN VERIFY SCRIPT-
./contrib/devtools/copyright_header.py update ./test/
-END VERIFY SCRIPT-
With this new method, outputs to an arbitrary scriptPubKey/amount can
be created. Note that the implementation was already present in the
test feature_rbf.py and is just moved to the MiniWallet interface, in
order to enable other tests to also use it.
f680d27155 test: use MiniWallet for make_utxo helper in feature_rbf.py (Sebastian Falbesoner)
0f27524602 test: scale amounts in test_doublespend_tree down by factor 10 (Sebastian Falbesoner)
d1e2481274 test: scale amounts in test_doublespend_chain down by factor 10 (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This PR aims to further increase MiniWallet usage in the functional test feature_rbf.py by using it in the `make_utxo(...)` helper, which is the only part that needs a wallet for most sub-tests. In order to do that, the amounts for the utxos have to be scaled down in two sub-tests first (`test_doublespend_chain` and `test_doublespend_tree`, see first two commits), since we need amounts passed to `make_utxo` than can be funded by only one input. For creating UTXOs with a value of 50 BTC, we'd need to implement a method for consolidating multiple utxos into one first, which seems to be overkill.
Note that after this PR's change, there is only one sub-test left (`test_rpc`) that needs the wallet compiled into bitcoind.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
review ACK f680d27155🦐
Tree-SHA512: 46c8c245086a9e79855c4ede2f8f412333cf2658136805196b203b3567c89398d77fcb80715c0bb72fdc84331cc67544b2fdc259193a3adcb2fc36e147c26fce
This is done in order to prepare the make_utxo helper to use MiniWallet,
which only supports creating transactions with single inputs, i.e. we
need to create amounts small enough to be funded by coinbase transactions
(50 BTC).
This is done in order to prepare the make_utxo helper to use MiniWallet,
which only supports creating transactions with single inputs, i.e. we
need to create amounts small enough to be funded by coinbase transactions
(50 BTC).
Surprisingly easy to do. Almost all of the diff resolution was mechanically
* replacing boost::variant with std::variant
* replacing Optional with std::optional
* then replacing `nullopt` with `std::nullopt`
* updating the RPC functions for the new RPCArg::Default type
* update the tests/ directory to make new (since 22) tests use arrays for
createrawtransaction outputs
* other ad-hoc changes to function parameters etc (not too many of these)
I had to "really" change the code in PrecomputePSBTData, which was introduced
in 22.0 and affected by PSET, but this function was like 8 lines long so it
was easy.
Reviewing the diff may be a bit difficult because of the mix of mechanical
changes and ad-hoc things. Probably the most straightforward thing to do
is to redo the merge, `sed -i` to fix the boost::variant and Optional stuff,
then diff the remaining conflicts against this commit.
TODO: grep for `blindpsbt` and you will see that this RPC is still referenced
in documentation and help text even though it was deleted. Need to fix this
in 0.21 in a separate PR.
2eb0eeda39 validation: document lack of inherited signaling in RBF policy (Antoine Riard)
906b6d9da6 test: Extend feature_rbf.py with no inherited signaling (Antoine Riard)
Pull request description:
Contrary to BIP125 or other full-node implementation (e.g btcd), Bitcoin Core's mempool policy doesn't implement inherited signaling.
This PR documents our mempool behavior on this and add a test demonstrating the case.
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
ACK 2eb0eeda39
benthecarman:
ACK 2eb0eeda39
Tree-SHA512: d41453d3b49bae3c1eb532a968f43bc047084913bd285929d4d9cba142777ff2be38163d912e28dfc635f4ecf446de68effad799c6e71be52f81e83410c712fb
