b6121edf70 swapped "is" for "==" in literal comparison (Tyler Chambers)
Pull request description:
In Python 3.8+ literal comparisons using "is" instead of "==" produce a SyntaxWarning [source](https://docs.python.org/3.8/whatsnew/3.8.html#changes-in-python-behavior).
I checked the entire devtools directory, this seems to be the only occurrence.
This is a small fix, but removes the SyntaxWarning.
Fixes: #20338
ACKs for top commit:
hebasto:
re-ACK b6121edf70, only squashed since my [previous](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20346#pullrequestreview-525934568) review.
practicalswift:
re-ACK b6121edf70: patch still looks correct
theStack:
utACK b6121edf70
Tree-SHA512: 82a43495d6552fbaa3b02b58f0930b049d27aa937fe44b47714e3c059f844cc494de20674557371cbccf24fb8873ecb7376fb965ae326847eed2b855ed2d59c6
5f9c0b6360 wallet: Remove -upgradewallet from dummywallet (MarcoFalke)
a314271f08 test: Remove unused wallet.dat (MarcoFalke)
bf7635963c tests: Test specific upgradewallet scenarios and that upgrades work (Andrew Chow)
4b418a9dec test: Add test_framework/bdb.py module for inspecting bdb files (Andrew Chow)
092fc43485 tests: Add a sha256sum_file function to util (Andrew Chow)
0bd995aa19 wallet: upgrade the CHDChain version number when upgrading to split hd (Andrew Chow)
8e32e1c41c wallet: remove nWalletMaxVersion (Andrew Chow)
bd7398cc62 wallet: have ScriptPubKeyMan::Upgrade check against the new version (Andrew Chow)
5f720544f3 wallet: Add GetClosestWalletFeature function (Andrew Chow)
842ae3842d wallet: Add utility method for CanSupportFeature (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
This PR cleans up the wallet upgrade mechanism a bit, fixes some probably bugs, and adds more test cases.
The `nWalletMaxVersion` member variable has been removed as it made `CanSupportFeature` unintuitive and was causing a couple of bugs. The reason this was introduced originally was to allow a wallet upgrade to only occur when the new feature is first used. While this makes sense for the old `-upgradewallet` option, for an RPC, this does not quite make sense. It's more intuitive for an upgrade to occur if possible if the `upgradewallet` RPC is used as that's an explicit request to upgrade a particular wallet to a newer version. `nWalletMaxVersion` was only relevant for upgrades to `FEATURE_WALLETCRYPT` and `FEATURE_COMPRPUBKEY` both of which are incredibly old features. So for such wallets, the behavior of `upgradewallet` will be that the feature is enabled immediately without the wallet needing to be encrypted at that time (note that `FEATURE_WALLETCRYPT` indicates support for encryption, not that the wallet is encrypted) or for a new key to be generated.
`CanSupportFeature` would previously indicate whether we could upgrade to `nWalletMaxVersion` not just whether the current wallet version supported a feature. While this property was being used to determine whether we should upgrade to HD and HD chain split, it was also causing a few bugs. Determining whether we should upgrade to HD or HD chain split is resolved by passing into `ScriptPubKeyMan::Upgrade` the version we are upgrading to and checking against that. By removing `nWalletMaxVersion` we also fix a bug where you could upgrade to HD chain split without the pre-split keypool.
`nWalletMaxVersion` was also the version that was being reported by `getwalletinfo` which meant that the version reported was not always consistent across restarts as it depended on whether `upgradewallet` was used. Additionally to make the wallet versions consistent with actually supported versions, instead of just setting the wallet version to whatever is given to `upgradewallet`, we normalize the version number to the closest supported version number. For example, if given 150000, we would store and report 139900.
Another bug where CHDChain was not being upgraded to the version supporting HD chain split is also fixed by this PR.
Lastly several more tests have been added. Some refactoring to the test was made to make these tests easier. These tests check specific upgrading scenarios, such as from non-HD (version 60000) to HD to pre-split keypool. Although not specifically related to `upgradewallet`, `UpgradeKeyMetadata` is now being tested too.
Part of the new tests is checking that the wallet files are identical before and after failed upgrades. To facilitate this, a utility function `sha256sum_file` has been added. Another part of the tests is to examine the wallet file itself to ensure that the records in the wallet.dat file have been correctly modified. So a new `bdb.py` module has been added to deserialize the BDB db of the wallet.dat file. This format isn't explicitly documented anywhere, but the code and comments in BDB's source code in file `dbinc/db_page.h` describe it. This module just dumps all of the fields into a dict.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
approach ACK 5f9c0b6360
laanwj:
Code review ACK 5f9c0b6360
jonatack:
ACK 5f9c0b6360, approach seems fine, code review, only skimmed the test changes but they look well done, rebased on current master, debug built and verified the `wallet_upgradewallet.py` test runs green both before and after running `test/get_previous_releases.py -b v0.19.1 v0.18.1 v0.17.2 v0.16.3 v0.15.2`
Tree-SHA512: 7c4ebf420850d596a586cb6dd7f2ef39c6477847d12d105fcd362abb07f2a8aa4f7afc5bfd36cbc8b8c72fcdd1de8d2d3f16ad8e8ba736b6f4f31f133fe5feba
Moved GetOnlinePakKey to the scriptpubkey manager; the other blinding
stuff remains in the CWallet. At some point after the rebase we should
consider whether there's a better separation to be had between the PAK
related stuff now that we have wallet boxes.
This fixes a segfault I introduced in 981df590811 (#17371) a couple hundred PRs
ago, where we might out-of-bounds access the vout arrray of a non_witness_utxo
transaction in a PSBT.
This logic should probably be refactored after the rebase -- we sift through
the non_witness_utxos to find a scriptpubkey, which we use to get a wallet
provider, so we can pass this to SignPSBTInput, which then repeats the same
logic (for its own reasons, and without the segfault bug)....and we aren't
even calling SignPSBTInput for signing reasons! It has something to do with
blinding.
This Elements PR includes components of Core PR #17211, which since the
refactors to use effective value landed, no longer provides the right
error message when a user provides an unowned input from a wallet tx.
See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17211#pullrequestreview-528389011
This breaks a functional test which was included in this PR, but which
conveniently has been changed in the current version of the Core PR. I
fixed the behavior (commented, in SelectCoins) rather than updating the
test to the most recent version.
