This changed the node pruning logic and moved test/functional/feature_blockfilterindex_prune.py
to test/functional/feature_index_prune.py.
Please verify that:
1. I migrated the test correctly
2. The magic numbers in the test look fine
With respect to #2: I believe the magic numbers are wrong. I previously had to tweak them heavily
in commit 1278b31. I don't think I did it correctly then, and so I don't believe them to be correct now.
To summarize what this tweaking was: I changed the magic numbers in the test to work properly,
but I suspect that in changing them, I may have nullified what the test was testing.
It's very possible that the reason the test was failing was because of an underlying bug with the pruning
in elements which we have to fix, rather than just being an issue with the test itself.
fa69e3a95c Remove unused MessageStartChars parameters from BlockManager methods (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Seems odd to expose these for mocking, when it is not needed.
Fix this by removing the the unused parameters and use the already existing member field instead.
ACKs for top commit:
Empact:
utACK fa69e3a95c
dergoegge:
utACK fa69e3a95c
Tree-SHA512: 7814e9560abba8d9c0926bcffc70f92e502d22f543af43671248f6fcd1433f35238553c0f05123fde6d8e0f80261af0ab0500927548115153bd68d57fe2da746
Separate the notion of which blocks are stored on disk, and what data is in our
block index, from what tip a chainstate might be able to get to. We can use
chainstate-agnostic data to determine when to store a block on disk (primarily,
an anti-DoS set of criteria) and let the chainstates figure out for themselves
when a block is of interest for being a candidate tip.
Note: some of the invariants in CheckBlockIndex are modified, but more work is
needed (ie to move CheckBlockIndex to ChainstateManager, as most of what
CheckBlockIndex is doing is checking the consistency of the block index, which
is outside of Chainstate).
When writing a new block to disk, if we have filled up the current block file,
then we flush and truncate that block file (to free allocated but unused
space) before advancing to the next one. When this happens, we have to
determine whether to also flush and truncate the corresponding undo file.
Undo data is only written when blocks are connected, not when blocks are
received. Thus it's possible that the corresponding undo file already has all
the data it will ever have, and we should flush/truncate it as we advance
files; or it's possible that there is more data we expect to write, and should
therefore defer flush/truncation until undo data is later written.
Prior to this commit, we made the determination of whether the undo file was
full of all requisite data by comparing against the chain tip. This patch
replaces that dependence on validation data structures by instead just tracking
the highest height of any block written in the undo file as we go.
This has the benefit of moving the StartShutdown call out of the
blockstorage file and thus out of the kernel's responsibility. The user
can now decide if he wants to start shutdown / interrupt after a block
import or not.
At present, during init, we traverse the chain (once per index)
to confirm that all necessary blocks to sync each index up to
the current tip are present.
To make the process more efficient, we can fetch the oldest block
from the indexers and perform the chain data existence check from
that point only once.
This also moves the pruning violation check to the end of the
'loadinit' thread, which is where the reindex, block loading and
chain activation processes happen.
Making the node's startup process faster, allowing us to remove
the global g_indexes_ready_to_sync flag, and enabling the
execution of the pruning violation verification even when the
reindex or reindex-chainstate flags are enabled (which has being
skipped so far).
By generalizing 'GetFirstStoredBlock' and implementing
'CheckBlockDataAvailability' we can dedup code and
avoid repeating work when multiple indexes are enabled.
E.g. get the oldest block across all indexes and
perform the pruning violation check from that point
up to the tip only once (this feature is being introduced
in a follow-up commit).
This commit shouldn't change behavior in any way.
Co-authored-by: Ryan Ofsky <ryan@ofsky.org>
And transfer the responsibility of verifying whether 'start_block'
has data or not to the caller.
This is because the 'GetFirstStoredBlock' function responsibility
is to return the first block containing data. And the current
implementation can return 'start_block' when it has no data!. Which
is misleading at least.
Edge case behavior change:
Previously, if the block tip lacked data but all preceding blocks
contained data, there was no prune violation. And now, such
scenario will result in a prune violation.
