Added the additional elements output types of "true" and "fee" to the
decodescript lambdas, we should confirm that this is correct for the fee
outputs. ie. that it is acceptable to permit fee outputs to be wrapped
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-
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.
905d672b74 test: use script_util helpers for creating P2W{PKH,SH} scripts (Sebastian Falbesoner)
285a65ccfd test: use script_util helpers for creating P2SH scripts (Sebastian Falbesoner)
b57b633b94 test: use script_util helpers for creating P2PKH scripts (Sebastian Falbesoner)
61b6a017a9 test: wallet util: fix multisig P2SH-P2WSH script creation (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
PR #18788 (commit 08067aebfd) introduced functions to generate output scripts for various types. This PR replaces all manual CScript creations in the P2PKH, P2SH, P2WPKH, P2WSH formats with those helpers in order to increase readability and maintainability over the functional test codebase. The first commit fixes a bug in the wallet_util helper module w.r.t. to P2SH-P2WSH script creation (the result is not used in any test so far, hence it can still be seen as refactoring).
The following table shows a summary of the output script patterns tackled in this PR:
| Type | master branch | PR branch |
| ---------- | ------------- | ------------- |
| P2PKH | `CScript([OP_DUP, OP_HASH160, hash160(key), OP_EQUALVERIFY, OP_CHECKSIG])` | `key_to_p2pkh_script(key)` |
| | `CScript([OP_DUP, OP_HASH160, keyhash, OP_EQUALVERIFY, OP_CHECKSIG])` | `keyhash_to_p2pkh_script(keyhash)` |
| P2SH | `CScript([OP_HASH160, hash160(script), OP_EQUAL])` | `script_to_p2sh_script(script)` |
| P2WPKH | `CScript([OP_0, hash160(key)])` | `key_to_p2wpkh_script(key)` |
| P2WSH | `CScript([OP_0, sha256(script)])` | `script_to_p2wsh_script(script)` |
Note that the `key_to_...` helpers can't be used if an invalid key size (not 33 or 65 bytes) is passed, which is the case in some rare instances where the scripts still have to be created manually.
Possible follow-up ideas:
* further simplify by identifying P2SH-wrapped scripts and using `key_to_p2sh_p2wpkh_script()` and `script_to_p2sh_p2wsh_script()` helpers
* introduce and use `key_to_p2pk_script()` helper for P2PK scripts
ACKs for top commit:
rajarshimaitra:
tACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22363/commits/905d672b743edf31531d095ffe800449eaffec69
LarryRuane:
tACK 905d672b74
0xB10C:
ACK 905d672b74
MarcoFalke:
review ACK 905d672b74 🕹
Tree-SHA512: 7ccfe69699bc81168ac122b03536720013355c1b2fbb088355b616015318644c4d1cd27e20c4f56c89ad083ae609add4bc838cf6316794d0edb0ce9cf7fa0fd8
This reject reason is triggered for non-coinbase transactions with
a coinbase-like outpoint, i.e. hash=0, n=0xffffffff.
Note that the invalid tx templates are currently used in the
functional tests feature_block.py and p2p_invalid_tx.py.
Now that we require Python 3.6+, we should be using variable type
annotations directly rather than # type: comments.
Also takes care of the discarded value issue in p2p_message_capture.py.
See: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19509/files#r571674446.
Recreated addresses for functional tests using `hal elements address create --script`
with the given script from data/rpc_bip67.json, taking the P2SH output
Support for type hints was introduced in Python 3.5. Type hints make it easier to read and review code in my opinion. Also an IDE may discover a potential bug sooner. Yet, as PEP 484 says: "It should also be emphasized that Python will remain a dynamically typed language, and the authors have no desire to ever make type hints mandatory, even by convention."
Mypy is used in lint-python.sh to do the type checking. The package is standard so there is little chance that it will be abandoned. Mypy checks that type hints in source code are correct when they are not, it fails with an error.
Useful resources:
* https://docs.python.org/3.5/library/typing.html
* https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0484/
9743432034 Fix bug where duplicate PSBT keys are accepted (John L. Jegutanis)
Pull request description:
As per the BIP 174 spec a PSBT key cannot be duplicated,
however the current code accepts key duplication.
The PSBT key/value entries can be duplicated when the value
is `empty()` or `IsNull()` for `CScript` or `CTxOut` respectively
and if those key/value entries are serialized before the non-empty ones.
For example, the following PSBT, included in the test vectors,
contains a duplicate field:
```
// magic
70736274ff
// global tx
//// key
0100
//// value
2a02000000000140420f000000000017a9146e91b72d5593e7d4391e2ff44e91e985c31641f08700000000
//// separator
00
// no inputs
// outputs
//// key PSBT_OUT_WITNESSSCRIPT
0101
//// value (empty script)
00
//// key PSBT_OUT_WITNESSSCRIPT (same as the above)
0101
//// value (an OP_RETURN script)
016a
//// separator
00
```
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 9743432034
instagibbs:
code review ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16821/commits/9743432034586385cfef87df4b377c255ed0cba8
Tree-SHA512: 34f4b34c8e6561c6a6ab745cdd319f6687eac6f7cecc735c94035eeca8c5157e17a27f2ae853dbaa6634fcd5a8f4e1c6cc13d1ebd7e563459665d72bb147cc1e
As per the BIP 174 spec a PSBT key cannot be duplicated,
however the current code accepts key duplication.
The PSBT key/value entries can be duplicated when the value
is `empty()` or `IsNull()` for `CScript` or `CTxOut` respectively
and if those key/value entries are serialized before the non-empty ones.
For example, the following PSBT, included in the test vectors,
contains a duplicate field:
```
// magic
70736274ff
// global tx
//// key
0100
//// value
2a02000000000140420f000000000017a9146e91b72d5593e7d4391e2ff44e91e985c31641f08700000000
//// separator
00
// no inputs
// outputs
//// key PSBT_OUT_WITNESSSCRIPT
0101
//// value (empty script)
00
//// key PSBT_OUT_WITNESSSCRIPT (same as the above)
0101
//// value (an OP_RETURN script)
016a
//// separator
00
```
c4b0c08f7c Update tx-size-small comment with relevant CVE disclosure (Gregory Sanders)
Pull request description:
Code first introduced under https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11423 with essentially no description and no discussion.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK c4b0c08f7c
fanquake:
ACK c4b0c08f7c
Tree-SHA512: 95d5c92998b8b1e944c477dbaee265b62612b6e815099ab31d9ff580b4dff777abaf7f326a284644709f918aa1510412d62310689b1250ef6e64de7b19ca9f71
0c62e3aa73 New regression testing for CVE-2018-17144, CVE-2012-2459, and CVE-2010-5137. (lucash-dev)
38bfca6bb2 Added comments referencing multiple CVEs in tests and production code. (lucash-dev)
Pull request description:
This functional test includes two scenarios that test for regressions of vulnerabilities, but they are only briefly described. There are freely available documents explaining in detail the issues, but without explicit mentions, the developer trying to maintain the code needs an additional step of digging in commit history and PR conversations to figure it out.
Added comments to explicitly mention CVE-2018-17144 and CVE-2012-2459, for more complete documentation.
This improves developer experience by making understanding the tests easier.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK 0c62e3aa73, checked the CVE numbers, thanks for adding documentation
Tree-SHA512: 3ee05351745193b8b959e4a25d50f25a693b2d24b0732ed53cf7d5882df40b5dd0f1877bd5c69cffb921d4a7acf9deb3cc1160b96dc730d9b5984151ad06b7c9
2222c96dee test: Add notes on how to generate data/wallets/high_minversion (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
I forgot to do this in #16796
ACKs for top commit:
ryanofsky:
ACK 2222c96dee
Tree-SHA512: 5f24ffa641b97eac4febad42ade7228b14fa72335c918a10880c5dec86a3ecc3075a31526f275188e07fea95b8e2c6320c64f716099f604b00e13d5366fcee37
