Consistently use ParseHashV to validate hash inputs in rpc
ParseHashV validates the length and encoding of the string and throws an informative RPC error on failure, which is as good or better than these alternative calls. Note I switched ParseHashV to check string length first, because IsHex tests that the length is even, and an error like: "must be of length 64 (not 63, for X)" is much more informative than "must be hexadecimal string (not X)"
This commit is contained in:
parent
56f69360dc
commit
5eb20f81d9
14 changed files with 58 additions and 59 deletions
test/functional
|
@ -122,9 +122,15 @@ class WalletTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
|
|||
assert_equal([unspent_0], self.nodes[2].listlockunspent())
|
||||
self.nodes[2].lockunspent(True, [unspent_0])
|
||||
assert_equal(len(self.nodes[2].listlockunspent()), 0)
|
||||
assert_raises_rpc_error(-8, "Invalid parameter, unknown transaction",
|
||||
assert_raises_rpc_error(-8, "txid must be of length 64 (not 34, for '0000000000000000000000000000000000')",
|
||||
self.nodes[2].lockunspent, False,
|
||||
[{"txid": "0000000000000000000000000000000000", "vout": 0}])
|
||||
assert_raises_rpc_error(-8, "txid must be hexadecimal string (not 'ZZZ0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000')",
|
||||
self.nodes[2].lockunspent, False,
|
||||
[{"txid": "ZZZ0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000", "vout": 0}])
|
||||
assert_raises_rpc_error(-8, "Invalid parameter, unknown transaction",
|
||||
self.nodes[2].lockunspent, False,
|
||||
[{"txid": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000", "vout": 0}])
|
||||
assert_raises_rpc_error(-8, "Invalid parameter, vout index out of bounds",
|
||||
self.nodes[2].lockunspent, False,
|
||||
[{"txid": unspent_0["txid"], "vout": 999}])
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue