This one was pretty brutal, but ultimately nothing too surprising.
Just had to keep track of which wallets owned which blinding keys,
and in wallet_importprunedfunds.py I had to manually create a
Liquid address.
Changes API for AcceptToMemoryPool to no longer check maximum fee; we remove
this check from interfaces::CChain::testPeginClaimAcceptance. This is fine,
the check never should have been there (this method's job is to notice double
claim attempts and provide a more helpful message to the user; other mempool
failures should be caught later in the `claimrawpegin` logic when we call
`pwallet->commitTransaction` which actually subits to the mempool). It was
only checking fees because the API made it easier to do so than to not.
-BEGIN VERIFY SCRIPT-
# max-depth=0 excludes test/functional/test_framework/...
FILES=$(git grep -l --max-depth 0 "connect_nodes" test/functional)
# Replace (dis)?connect_nodes(self.nodes[a], b) with self.(dis)?connect_nodes(a, b)
sed -i 's/\b\(dis\)\?connect_nodes(self\.nodes\[\(.*\)\]/self.\1connect_nodes(\2/g' $FILES
# Remove imports in the middle of a line
sed -i 's/\(dis\)\?connect_nodes, //g' $FILES
sed -i 's/, \(dis\)\?connect_nodes//g' $FILES
# Remove imports on a line by themselves
sed -i '/^\s*\(dis\)\?connect_nodes,\?$/d' $FILES
sed -i '/^from test_framework\.util import connect_nodes$/d' $FILES
-END VERIFY SCRIPT-
Co-authored-by: Elliott Jin <elliott.jin@gmail.com>
b048b275d9 [validation] Remove absurdfee from accepttomempool (John Newbery)
932564b9cf scripted-diff: update max-fee-exceeded error message to include RPC (gzhao408)
8f1290c601 [rpc/node] check for high fee before ATMP in clients (gzhao408)
Pull request description:
Picked up from #15810. Add separate fee-checking logic for clients that need to enforce max fee rates, then remove the `absurdFee` logic from ATMP.
ATMP's `nAbsurdFee` argument is used to enforce user-specific behavior (it is not policy since it isn't applied consistently: it is only ever used in RPC and wallet, and set to 0 everywhere else internally). It should be removed from `AcceptToMemoryPool` because (1) validation results/mempool behavior should not be user-specific and (2) enforcing a max fee rate should be the responsibility of the client instead of the mempool.
Note: this PR does not intend to _remove_ protection from high fees, just re-delegate the responsibility to clients.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
utACK b048b275d9
LarryRuane:
re-ACK b048b275d9
MarcoFalke:
re-ACK b048b275d9 , only change is squashing one commit 🏦
instagibbs:
utACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19339/commits/b048b275d9711f70847afaea5450f17a0f7e673a
Tree-SHA512: 57c17ba16d230a4cae2896dd6a64c924f307757824e35784bf96da7b10aff2d8ea910710edf35e981035623a155f8766209a92a0fdb856549fde78bc3eaae4d2
-BEGIN VERIFY SCRIPT-
sed -i 's/Fee exceeds maximum configured by \-\maxtxfee/Fee exceeds maximum configured by user (e.g. -maxtxfee, maxfeerate)/g' src/util/error.cpp test/functional/rpc_fundrawtransaction.py test/functional/rpc_psbt.py test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py test/functional/wallet_bumpfee.py test/functional/wallet_create_tx.py
-END VERIFY SCRIPT-
Check absurd fee in BroadcastTransaction and RPC,
return TransactionError::MAX_FEE_EXCEEDED instead
of TxValidationResult::TX_NOT_STANDARD because this
is client preference, not a node-wide policy.
-BEGIN VERIFY SCRIPT-
r() { sed -i 's/vout must be positive/vout cannot be negative/g' $1 }
r $(git grep -l 'vout must be positive')
-END VERIFY SCRIPT-
e80259f197 Additionally treat Tx.nVersion as unsigned in joinpsbts (Matt Corallo)
970de70bdd Dump transaction version as an unsigned integer in RPC/TxToUniv (Matt Corallo)
Pull request description:
Consensus-wise we already treat it as an unsigned integer (the
only rules around it are in CSV/locktime handling), but changing
the underlying data type means touching consensus code for a
simple cleanup change, which isn't really worth it.
See-also, https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/pull/299
ACKs for top commit:
sipa:
ACK e80259f197
practicalswift:
ACK e80259f197
ajtowns:
ACK e80259f197 code review -- checked all other uses of tx.nVersion treat it as unsigned (except for policy.cpp:IsStandard anyway), so looks good.
naumenkogs:
ACK e80259f
Tree-SHA512: 6760a2c77e24e9e1f79a336ca925f9bbca3a827ce02003c71d7f214b82ed3dea13fa7d9f87df9b9445cd58dff8b44a15571d821c876f22f8e5a372a014c9976b
Remove the BIP61 REJECT code from error messages and logs when a
transaction is rejected.
BIP61 support was removed from Bitcoin Core in
fa25f43ac5. The REJECT codes will be
removed from the codebase entirely in the following commit.
fadfd844de test: Remove unused connect_nodes_bi (MarcoFalke)
fa3b9ee8b2 scripted-diff: test: Replace connect_nodes_bi with connect_nodes (MarcoFalke)
faaee1e39a test: Use connect_nodes when connecting nodes in the test_framework (MarcoFalke)
1111bb91f5 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 fadfd844de
jonasschnelli:
utACK fadfd844de - more of less a cleanup PR.
promag:
Tested ACK fadfd844de, ran extended tests.
Tree-SHA512: 2d027a8fd150749c071b64438a0a78ec922178628a7dbb89fd1212b0fa34febd451798c940101155d3617c0426c2c4865174147709894f1f1bb6cfa336aa7e24
Consensus-wise we already treat it as an unsigned integer (the
only rules around it are in CSV/locktime handling), but changing
the underlying data type means touching consensus code for a
simple cleanup change, which isn't really worth it.
See-also, https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/pull/299
