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.
-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>
Previously, listsinceblock would fail with error code -1 when the
target_confirmations exceeded the number of confirmations of the genesis
block. This commit allows target_confirmations to refer to a lastblock
hash with more confirmations than exist in the chain by setting the
lastblock hash to the genesis hash in this case. This allows for
`listsinceblock "" 6` to not fail if the block count is less than 5
which may happen on regtest.
Includes update to the functional test for listsinceblock to test for
this case.
listsinceblock now checks that returned transactions are not
conflicting with any transactions that are filtered out by
the given blockhash
Co-Authored-By: Michael Chrostowski <michael.chrostowski@gmail.com>
5eb20f81d9 Consistently use ParseHashV to validate hash inputs in rpc (Ben Woosley)
Pull request description:
ParseHashV validates the length and encoding of the string and throws
an informative RPC error on failure, which is as good or better than
these alternative calls.
Note I switched ParseHashV to check string length first, because
IsHex tests that the length is even, and an error like:
"must be of length 64 (not 63, for X)" is much more informative than
"must be hexadecimal string (not X)" in that case.
Split from #13420
Tree-SHA512: f0786b41c0d7793ff76e4b2bb35547873070bbf7561d510029e8edb93f59176277efcd4d183b3185532ea69fc0bbbf3dbe9e19362e8017007ae9d51266cd78ae
ParseHashV validates the length and encoding of the string and throws
an informative RPC error on failure, which is as good or better than
these alternative calls.
Note I switched ParseHashV to check string length first, because
IsHex tests that the length is even, and an error like:
"must be of length 64 (not 63, for X)" is much more informative than
"must be hexadecimal string (not X)"
Future commits will deprecate the accounts RPC methods, arguments and
return objects. Set the -deprecatedrpc=accounts switch now so tests
don't break in intermediate commits.
