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:
Ben Woosley 2018-06-08 11:16:07 -07:00
parent 56f69360dc
commit 5eb20f81d9
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: 6EE5F3785F78B345
14 changed files with 58 additions and 59 deletions
test/functional

View file

@ -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}])