This PR adds a new functional test which unfortunately we need to disable
because it triggers an unrelated Elements bug (assertation failure when
attempting a large fundrawtransaction).
See https://github.com/ElementsProject/elements/issues/880
There are a few layers of bullshit to this PR.
First, there is the fact that it adds a functional test gated on a new
config flag which is disabled by default, so it actually adds broken
code with no tests, waiting to ruin your day 520 PRs later when #21935
enables the broken test.
Second, the test appears to be superficially nonsensical because it
generates two transactions from different wallets and tries to compare
them for byte-for-byte equality, which doesn't make sense (at least)
because change outputs are randomly located...so something fishy is
going on.
Of course, in Elements the transactions are *not* equal half the time
because the outputs are permuted, which may have let me quickly figure
out the issue, except...
Third, there is a red herring of a bug where the two transactions have
slightly different feerates. This turns out to be caused by
CWallet::CalculateMaximumSignedTxSize using differently sized dummy
transactions depending on whether watchonly outputs are included (this
fact is conveniently disguised by #17211 slightly changing this logic;
this is an unmerged PR in Core that Elements has a backport of an old
version of). And the two wallets have different watchonly settings.
A sub-red-herring is the fact that this bug results in a discrepancy
of 0.25 vbytes, so it does not appear in Core but does appear in
Elements (there is a 3/16 probability that we should be so unlucky...
we are).
But this is all irrelevant, because...
Fourth, this test is actually super bullshit. The way it works is by
constructing a PSBT legitimately, saving this to disk, then re-"signs"
using the external signer interface by using a mock signer that
COMPLETELY REPLACES THE TRANSACTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION. So it doesn't
matter what the fee output looks like and it doesn't matter what the
order of the outputs. Core does not detect this malfeasance and
neither does Elements. For some reason, Core has a functional test
that explicitly checks that you can do this even though it is insane
and it is hard to think of non-malicious reasons to do it.
Fifth, while Elements fails to detect that its external signer is
actually changing the transaction out from under it, it DOES assume
that this won't happen. In CWallet::SignPSBT it blithely un-replaces
the transaction, which undermines the functional test.
Sixth, the original PR where this test was introduced has comments
locked, so anyone who spent six hours reverse-engineering this idiotic
broken test, and is still feeling charitable enough to discuss it with
the Core developors, can go pound sand.
Anyway, just disabled the broken test and move on with our lives.
This is a really non-trivial wallet refactor "effective value" which has been
in the Core queue for a pretty long time. There were a ton of merge conflicts
but they were mostly mechanical (all the benchmarks) or "take the Core side
of the diff" (most of wallet.cpp).
The two nontrivial things were:
* In `SelectCoinsMinConf` in wallet.cpp I had to slightly move the asset
filtering logic (but I didn't change it)
* In `OutputGroup::Insert' in coinselection.cpp I changed the effective
value computation to only consider policyAsset values
ebc4ab721b refactor: post Optional<> removal cleanups (fanquake)
57e980d13c scripted-diff: remove Optional & nullopt (fanquake)
Pull request description:
Same rationale & motivation as #21404, which turned out to be quite low in the number of potential conflicts. Lets see what the bot has to say here.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
cr ACK ebc4ab721b: patch looks correct
jnewbery:
utACK ebc4ab721b
laanwj:
Code review ACK ebc4ab721b
Tree-SHA512: 550fbeef09b9d35ddefaa805d1755c18c8fd499c4b0f77ebfece8c20296a7abd1cf6c699e2261f92fe3552deeb7555ec2a2287ffe3ab9e98bb9f8612a4d43be3
f9cd2bfbcc Rename CoinSelectionParams::effective_fee to m_effective_feerate (Andrew Chow)
bdd0c2934b wallet: Move discard feerate fetching to CreateTransaction (Andrew Chow)
448d04b931 wallet: Move long term feerate setting to CreateTransaction (Andrew Chow)
e2f429e6bb wallet: Replace nFeeRateNeeded with effective_fee (Andrew Chow)
1a6a0b0dfb wallet: Use existing feerate instead of getting a new one (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
During coin selection, there are various places where we need to have a feerate. We need the feerate for the transaction itself, the discard fee rate, and long term feerate. Fetching these each time we need them can lead to a race condition where two feerates that should be the same are actually different. One particular instance where this can happen is during the loop in `CreateTransactionInternal`. After inputs are chosen, the expected transaction fee is calculated using a newly fetched feerate. If `pick_new_inputs == false`, the loop will go again with the assumption that the fee for the transaction remains the same. However because the feerate is fetched again, it is possible that it actually isn't and this causes coin selection to fail.
Instead of fetching the feerate each time it is needed, we fetch them all at once at the top of `CreateTransactionInternal`, store them in `CoinSelectionParams`, and use them where needed.
While some of these fee rates probably don't need this caching, I've done it for consistency and the guarantee that they remain the same.
Fixes#19229
ACKs for top commit:
glozow:
reACK f9cd2bfbcc
fjahr:
Code review re-ACK f9cd2bfbcc
Xekyo:
tACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21083/commits/f9cd2bfbccb7a2b8ff07cec5f6d2adbeca5f07c3
meshcollider:
Code review + test run ACK f9cd2bfbcc
Tree-SHA512: be83ff64ba473c3cdd3469c812e214659b6e2a9584c22ed2b1595618fce0d4b35d0901e61068cd1069fc1a8fb911db01dd7312d05c3b8cbafbe2504ab7a3e863
Instead of fetching the discard feerate for each SelectCoinsMinConf
iteration, fetch and cache it once during CreateTransaction so that it
is shared for each SelectCoinsMinConf through
coin_selection_params.m_discard_feerate.
Does not change behavior.
Instead of setting the long term feerate for each SelectCoinsMinConf
iteration, set it once during CreateTransaction and let it be shared
with each SelectCoinsMinConf through
coin_selection_params.m_long_term_feerate.
Does not change behavior.
Make sure that all fee calculations use the same feerate.
coin_selection_params.effective_fee is the variable we use for all fee
calculations, so get rid of remaining nFeeRateNeeded usages and just
directly set coin_selection_params.effective_fee.
Does not change behavior.
During each loop of CreateTransaction, instead of constantly getting a
new feerate, use the feerate that we have already fetched for all
fee calculations. Thix fixes a race condition where the feerate required
changes during each iteration of the loop.
This commit changes behavior as the "Fee estimation failed" error will
now take priority over "Signing transaction failed".
fa4e088cba wallet: Mark replaced tx to not be in the mempool anymore (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
The wallet does not mark the replaced tx as out-of-mempool. This causes failures in user scripts, because later RPCs may depend on this state change from `bumpfee`.
For example, the following might fail on current master:
```
txid = sendtoaddress(...)
bumpfee(txid)
abandontransaction(txid) # fails because txid is still marked as "in mempool"
```
Fixes#18831
ACKs for top commit:
meshcollider:
utACK fa4e088cba
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK fa4e088cba, and previous ACK faeedff5c87091fd83d2fb2b29eb49c948363f29 is also still valid in case there's a preference for the original fix
Tree-SHA512: 9858f40f5fb5a43a7b584b5c4268b6befa82e6a84583be5206fe721bcb6c255e8d35479d347d0b9aed72703df49887c02b14ab680e8efdd28b90dd6b93d9439a
48a0319bab Add a test that selects too large if BnB is used (Andrew Chow)
3e69939b78 Fail if maximum weight is too large (Andrew Chow)
51e2cd322c Have CalculateMaximumSignedTxSize also compute tx weight (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
Currently the `Transaction too large` is calculated on the transaction that is returned from `CreateTransaction`. This does not make sense for when `CreateTransaction` is being used for `fundrawtransaction` as no signing occurs so the final returned transaction is missing signatures. Thus users may successfully fund a transaction but fail to broadcast it after it has been fully signed.
So instead we should figure out whether the transaction we are funding will be too large after it is signed. We can do this by having `CalculateMaximumSignedTxSize` also return the transaction weight and then comparing that weight against the maximum weight.
ACKs for top commit:
instagibbs:
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20536/commits/48a0319babb409cf486a9eb7c776810f70b06cb2
meshcollider:
utACK 48a0319bab
Xekyo:
utACK with nits 48a0319bab
Tree-SHA512: 1700c60b07f67e2d5c591c5ccd131ac9f1861fab3def961c3c9c4b3281ec1063fe8e4f0f7f1038cac72692340856406bcee8fb45c8104d2ad34357a0ec878ac7
5d4597666d Rewrite OutputGroups to be clearer and to use scriptPubKeys (Andrew Chow)
f6b3052739 Explicitly filter out partial groups when we don't want them (Andrew Chow)
416d74fb16 Move OutputGroup positive only filtering into Insert (Andrew Chow)
d895e98b59 Move EligibleForSpending into GroupOutputs (Andrew Chow)
99b399aba5 Move fee setting of OutputGroup to Insert (Andrew Chow)
6148a8acda Move GroupOutputs into SelectCoinsMinConf (Andrew Chow)
2acad03657 Remove OutputGroup non-default constructors (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
Even after #17458, we still deal with setting fees of an `OutputGroup` and filtering the `OutputGroup` outside of the struct. We currently make all of the `OutputGroup`s in `SelectCoins` and then copy and modify them within each `SelectCoinsMinConf` scenario. This PR changes this to constructing the `OutputGroup`s within the `SelectCoinsMinConf` so that the scenario can be taken into account during the group construction. Furthermore, setting of fees and filtering for effective value is moved into `OutputGroup::Insert` itself so that we don't add undesirable outputs to an `OutputGroup` rather than deleting them afterwards.
To facilitate fee calculation and effective value filtering during `OutputGroup::Insert`, `OutputGroup` now takes the feerates in its constructor and computes the fees and effective value for each output during `Insert`.
While removing `OutputGroup`s in accordance with the `CoinEligibilityFilter` still requires creating the `OutputGroup`s first, we can do that within the function that makes them - `GroupOutput`s.
ACKs for top commit:
Xekyo:
Code review ACK: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20040/commits/5d4597666d589e39354e0d8dd5b2afbe1a5d7d8e
fjahr:
Code review ACK 5d4597666d
meshcollider:
Light utACK 5d4597666d
Tree-SHA512: 35965b6d49a87f4ebb366ec4f00aafaaf78e9282481ae2c9682b515a3a9f2cbcd3cd6e202fee29489d48fe7f3a7cede4270796f5e72bbaff76da647138fb3059
This adds better test coverage and will make it easier in #20744 to remove our dependency on the two-argument boost::filesystem::absolute() function which does not have a direct equivalent in C++17.
faa8f68943 Replace boost::variant with std::variant (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Now that we can use std::variant from the vanilla standard library, drop the third-party boost variant dependency
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
Code review ACK faa8f68943
fanquake:
ACK faa8f68943
Tree-SHA512: 6e3aecd33b00c2e31a763f999247944d5b2ce5e3018f1965c516c1000cd08ff6703a8d50fb0be64883153da2925ae72986b8a6b96586db74057bd05d6f4986e6
31b136e580 Don't declare de facto const reference variables as non-const (practicalswift)
1c65c075ee Don't declare de facto const member functions as non-const (practicalswift)
Pull request description:
_Meta: This is the second and final part of the `const` refactoring series (part one: #20581). **I promise: no more refactoring PRs from me in a while! :)** I'll now go back to focusing on fuzzing/hardening!_
Changes in this PR:
* Don't declare de facto const member functions as non-const
* Don't declare de facto const reference variables as non-const
Awards for finding candidates for the above changes go to:
* `clang-tidy`'s [`readability-make-member-function-const`](https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/readability-make-member-function-const.html) check ([list of `clang-tidy` checks](https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/list.html))
* `cppcheck`'s `constVariable` check ([list of `cppcheck` checks](https://sourceforge.net/p/cppcheck/wiki/ListOfChecks/))
See #18920 for instructions on how to analyse Bitcoin Core using Clang Static Analysis, `clang-tidy` and `cppcheck`.
ACKs for top commit:
ajtowns:
ACK 31b136e580
jonatack:
ACK 31b136e580
theStack:
ACK 31b136e580❄️
Tree-SHA512: f58f8f00744219426874379e9f3e9331132b9b48e954d24f3a85cbb858fdcc98009ed42ef7e7b4619ae8af9fc240a6d8bfc1c438db2e97b0ecd722a80dcfeffe
cc3044ccdb fix misleading comment about call to non-existing function (pox)
Pull request description:
The comment seems to be describing the subsequent call to `SyncTransaction` but refers to it as `SyncNotifications`, which is not any function currently in the codebase.
It's best to just remove the "what" aspect of the comment and focus on the "why", which also reduces the risk of similar documentation errors in the future, in case the function ever gets renamed, for example.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK cc3044ccdb
Tree-SHA512: 882ff17836ef585a603dc504f3dd21f56f682e49b28a0998f23fd16025826fbb083b7978db3ee70d0e0ff2c86fd6c3fd99a2361e5d45c765fdc5822c5f14c0a7
