backport: Merge bitcoin#28523, 26638, 28976, 26289#7358
Draft
vijaydasmp wants to merge 4 commits into
Draft
Conversation
…n table entries 352d5eb test: getrawaddrman RPC (0xb10c) da384a2 rpc: getrawaddrman for addrman entries (0xb10c) Pull request description: Inspired by `getaddrmaninfo` (bitcoin#27511), this adds a hidden/test-only `getrawaddrman` RPC. The RPC returns information on all addresses in the address manager new and tried tables. Addrman table contents can be used in tests and during development. The RPC result encodes the `bucket` and `position`, the internal location of addresses in the tables, in the address object's string key. This allows users to choose to consume or to ignore the location information. If the internals of the address manager implementation change, the location encoding might change too. ``` getrawaddrman EXPERIMENTAL warning: this call may be changed in future releases. Returns information on all address manager entries for the new and tried tables. Result: { (json object) "table" : { (json object) buckets with addresses in the address manager table ( new, tried ) "bucket/position" : { (json object) the location in the address manager table (<bucket>/<position>) "address" : "str", (string) The address of the node "port" : n, (numeric) The port number of the node "network" : "str", (string) The network (ipv4, ipv6, onion, i2p, cjdns) of the address "services" : n, (numeric) The services offered by the node "time" : xxx, (numeric) The UNIX epoch time when the node was last seen "source" : "str", (string) The address that relayed the address to us "source_network" : "str" (string) The network (ipv4, ipv6, onion, i2p, cjdns) of the source address }, ... }, ... } Examples: > bitcoin-cli getrawaddrman > curl --user myusername --data-binary '{"jsonrpc": "1.0", "id": "curltest", "method": "getrawaddrman", "params": []}' -H 'content-type: text/plain;' http://127.0.0.1:8332/ ``` ACKs for top commit: willcl-ark: reACK 352d5eb amitiuttarwar: reACK 352d5eb stratospher: reACK 352d5eb. achow101: ACK 352d5eb Tree-SHA512: cc462666b5c709617c66b0e3e9a17c4c81e9e295f91bdd9572492d1cb6466fc9b6d48ee805ebe82f9f16010798370effe5c8f4db15065b8c7c0d8637675d615e
|
17554ef test: prefer sqlite for wallet tests (S3RK) 8e0faba test: make wallet_migration.py pass with both wallet flags (S3RK) Pull request description: Fixes bitcoin#26511 ACKs for top commit: MarcoFalke: review ACK 17554ef achow101: ACK 17554ef Tree-SHA512: 97cae275998f07032feffe1b533d4747b8ff03c3c1fb830af69ee38cadb75fd58532956f66f79c0d275b00620ce53b0b5240f885e4f29b8bd4d0b6e6cbc683fa
c11c404 tests: Test migration of blank wallets (Andrew Chow) 563b2a6 wallet: Better error message when missing LegacySPKM during migration (Andrew Chow) b1d2c77 wallet: Check for descriptors flag before migration (Andrew Chow) 8c127ff wallet: Skip key and script migration for blank wallets (Andrew Chow) Pull request description: Blank wallets (wallets without any keys are scripts) are being detected as already being descriptor wallets even though they are not. This is because the check for whether a wallet is already a descriptor wallet uses the presence of a `LegacyScriptPubKeyMan` which is only setup when keys or scripts are found. This PR resolves this issue by checking for the descriptor wallet flag instead and subsequently skipping the keys and scripts part of migration for blank wallets. Fixes the issue mentioned in bitcoin#28868 (comment) ACKs for top commit: furszy: reACK c11c404. CI failure is unrelated. ryanofsky: Code review ACK c11c404 Tree-SHA512: 2466fdf1542eb8489c841253191f85dc88365493f0bb3395b67dee3e43709a9993c68b9d7623657b54b779adbe68fc81962d60efef4802c5d461f154167af7f4
…stors 47c4b1f mempool: log/halt when CalculateMemPoolAncestors fails unexpectedly (stickies-v) 5481f65 mempool: add AssumeCalculateMemPoolAncestors helper function (stickies-v) f911bdf mempool: use util::Result for CalculateMemPoolAncestors (stickies-v) 66e028f mempool: use util::Result for CalculateAncestorsAndCheckLimits (stickies-v) Pull request description: Upon reviewing the documentation for `CTxMemPool::CalculateMemPoolAncestors`, I noticed `setAncestors` was meant to be an `out` parameter but actually is an `in,out` parameter, as can be observed by adding `assert(setAncestors.empty());` as the first line in the function and running `make check`. This PR fixes this unexpected behaviour and introduces refactoring improvements to make intents and effects of the code more clear. ## Unexpected behaviour This behaviour occurs only in the package acceptance path, currently only triggered by `testmempoolaccept` and `submitpackage` RPCs. In `MemPoolAccept::AcceptMultipleTransactions()`, we first call `PreChecks()` and then `SubmitPackage()` with the same `Workspace ws` reference. `PreChecks` leaves `ws.m_ancestors` in a potentially non-empty state, before it is passed on to `MemPoolAccept::SubmitPackage`. `SubmitPackage` is the only place where `setAncestors` isn't guaranteed to be empty before calling `CalculateMemPoolAncestors`. The most straightforward fix is to just forcefully clear `setAncestors` at the beginning of CalculateMemPoolAncestors, which is done in the first bugfix commit. ## Improvements ### Return value instead of out-parameters This PR updates the function signatures for `CTxMemPool::CalculateMemPoolAncestors` and `CTxMemPool::CalculateAncestorsAndCheckLimits` to use a `util::Result` return type and eliminate both the `setAncestors` `in,out`-parameter as well as the error string. It simplifies the code and makes the intent and effects more explicit. ### Observability There are 7 instances where we currently call `CalculateMemPoolAncestors` without actually checking if the function succeeded because we assume that it can't fail, such as in [miner.cpp](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/69b10212ea5370606c7a5aa500a70c36b4cbb58f/src/node/miner.cpp#L399). This PR adds a new wrapper `AssumeCalculateMemPoolAncestors` function that logs such unexpected failures, or in case of debug builds even halts the program. It's not crucial to the objective, more of an observability improvement that seems sensible to add on here. ACKs for top commit: achow101: ACK 47c4b1f w0xlt: ACK bitcoin@47c4b1f glozow: ACK 47c4b1f furszy: light code review ACK 47c4b1f aureleoules: ACK 47c4b1f Tree-SHA512: d908dad00d1a5645eb865c4877cc0bae74b9cd3332a3641eb4a285431aef119f9fc78172d38b55c592168a73dae83242e6af3348815f7b37cbe2d448a3a58648
vijaydasmp
changed the title
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
bitcoin backports