e9a1881b90 refactor: add a function for determining if a block is pruned or not (Karl-Johan Alm)
Pull request description:
The check for whether a block is pruned or not is sufficiently obscure that it deserves a macro. It is also used in 2 places, ~~with more coming, e.g. #10757~~ (turns out it was a move, not an addition).
Tree-SHA512: b9aeb60663e1d1196df5371d5aa00b32ff5d4cdea6a77e4b566f28115cce09570c18e45e4b81a4033f67c4135c8e32c027f67bae3b75c2ea4564285578a3f4dd
ebec7317ca Drop the chain argument to GetDifficulty (Ben Woosley)
Pull request description:
By dropping the chain argument to `GetDifficulty`. `GetDifficulty` was called in two ways:
* with a guaranteed non-null blockindex
* with no argument
Change the latter case to be provided `chainActive.Tip()` explicitly.
Introduced in: #11748
Tree-SHA512: f2c97014be185f3e3de92db15848548650e4a67fab20a41bcfa851c5c63c245915cbe9380f84d9da2081e8756d31a41de417db1d35cfecf41ddb4f25070eb525
41d0476f62 Tests: Add data file (Anthony Towns)
4cbfb6aad9 Tests: Test new getblockstats RPC (Jorge Timón)
35e77a0288 RPC: Introduce getblockstats (Jorge Timón)
cda8e36f01 Refactor: RPC: Separate GetBlockChecked() from getblock() (Jorge Timón)
Pull request description:
It returns per block statistics about several things. It should be easy to add more if people think of other things to add or remove some if I went too far (but once written, why not keep it? EDIT: answer: not to test or maintain them).
The currently available options are: minfee,maxfee,totalfee,minfeerate,maxfeerate,avgfee,avgfeerate,txs,ins,outs (EDIT: see updated list in the rpc call documentation)
For the x axis, one can use height or block.nTime (I guess I could add mediantime if there's interest [EDIT: nobody showed interest but I implemented mediantime nonetheless, in fact there's no distinction between x or y axis anymore, that's for the caller to judge]).
To calculate fees, -txindex is required.
Tree-SHA512: 2b2787a3c7dc4a11df1fce62c8a4c748f5347d7f7104205d5f0962ffec1e0370c825b49fd4d58ce8ce86bf39d8453f698bcd46206eea505f077541ca7d59b18c
This removes the need to include rpc/blockchain.cpp in order to put
GetDifficulty under test. GetDifficulty was called in two ways:
* with a guaranteed non-null blockindex
* with no argument
Change the latter case to be provided chainActive.Tip() explicitly.
7de1de7 Add new fee structure with all sub-fields denominated in BTC (mryandao)
Pull request description:
the denomination for `fee` is current in btc while the other such as `decendentFee` and `ancestorFee` are in satoshis.
Tree-SHA512: e428f6dca1d339f89ab73e38ce5903f5465c46b159069d9bcc3f8b1140fe6657fa49a11abe0088e9f7ba9999f64af72a349a4735bf5eaa61b8e4a185b23543f3
Now that the transaction index is updated asynchronously, in order to
preserve the current behavior of public interfaces, the code blocks
until the transaction index is caught up with the current state of the
blockchain.
a5bca13 Bugfix: Include <memory> for std::unique_ptr (Luke Dashjr)
Pull request description:
Not sure why all these includes were missing, but it's breaking builds for some users:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=652142
(Added to all files with a reference to `std::unique_ptr`)
Tree-SHA512: 8a2c67513ca07b9bb52c34e8a20b15e56f8af2530310d9ee9b0a69694dd05e02e7a3683f14101a2685d457672b56addec591a0bb83900a0eb8e2a43d43200509
1f45e21 scripted-diff: Convert 11 enums into scoped enums (C++11) (practicalswift)
Pull request description:
Rationale (from Bjarne Stroustrup's ["C++11 FAQ"](http://www.stroustrup.com/C++11FAQ.html#enum)):
>
> The enum classes ("new enums", "strong enums") address three problems with traditional C++ enumerations:
>
> * conventional enums implicitly convert to int, causing errors when someone does not want an enumeration to act as an integer.
> * conventional enums export their enumerators to the surrounding scope, causing name clashes.
> * the underlying type of an enum cannot be specified, causing confusion, compatibility problems, and makes forward declaration impossible.
>
> The new enums are "enum class" because they combine aspects of traditional enumerations (names values) with aspects of classes (scoped members and absence of conversions).
Tree-SHA512: 9656e1cf4c3cabd4378c7a38d0c2eaf79e4a54d204a3c5762330840e55ee7e141e188a3efb2b4daf0ef3110bbaff80d8b9253abf2a9b015cdc4d60b49ac2b914
Using VARINT with signed types is dangerous because negative values will appear
to serialize correctly, but then deserialize as positive values mod 128.
This commit changes the VARINT macro to trigger an error by default if called
with an signed value, and updates broken uses of VARINT to pass a special flag
that lets them keep working with no change in behavior.
92fabcd44 Add LookupBlockIndex function (João Barbosa)
43a32b739 Add missing cs_lock in CreateWalletFromFile (João Barbosa)
f814a3e8f Fix cs_main lock in LoadExternalBlockFile (João Barbosa)
c651df8b3 Lock cs_main while loading block index in AppInitMain (João Barbosa)
02de6a6bc Assert cs_main is held when accessing mapBlockIndex (João Barbosa)
Pull request description:
Replace all `mapBlockIndex` lookups with the new `LookupBlockIndex()`. In some cases it avoids a second lookup.
Tree-SHA512: ca31118f028a19721f2191d86f2dd398144d04df345694575a64aeb293be2f85785201480c3c578a0ec99690516205708558c0fd4168b09313378fd4e60a8412
1dfb4e7d7 [Tests] Check output of parent/child tx list from getrawmempool, getmempooldescendants, getmempoolancestors, and REST interface (Conor Scott)
fc44cb108 [RPC] Add list of child transactions to verbose output of getrawmempool (Conor Scott)
Pull request description:
`bitcoin-cli getrawmempool true` only lists a transaction's parents in the `depends` field. This change adds a `spentby` field to the json response, which lists the transaction's children in the mempool.
Currently the only way to find child transactions is to use `getrawmempool` or make another call to `getmempooldescendants` and search the response for transactions that list the parent_txid in the `depends` list, which is inefficient.
This change allows direct lookup of children.
Example Output
```
"9a9b5733c0d89f207908cfa3fe17809bee71f629aa095c9f8754524e29e98ba4": {
...other geterawmempool data...
"wtxid": "9a9b5733c0d89f207908cfa3fe17809bee71f629aa095c9f8754524e29e98ba4",
"depends": [
"bdd92851d5766a42aeb62af667bb422a116cab4e032bba5e3dd6efe5b4b40aa0"
],
"spentby": [
"dc5d3ec388a9121421208738a041ac30a22163bc2e17758f2275b6c51a15ba7b"
]
},
```
Tree-SHA512: 83da7d421c9799a40ef65af3b7fdb586d6d87385f3f2ede3afd2c311725444b858f9d91cc110422a0fa31905779934fee07211ca6fe6b746792b83692c94b3ce
bb00c95 Consistently use FormatStateMessage in RPC error output (Ben Woosley)
8b8a1c4 Add test for 'mempool min fee not met' rpc error (Ben Woosley)
c04e0f6 Fix 'mempool min fee not met' debug output (Ben Woosley)
Pull request description:
Output the value that is tested, rather than the unmodified fee value.
Prompted by looking into: #11955
Tree-SHA512: fc0bad47d4af375d208f657a6ccbad6ef7f4e2989ae2ce1171226c22fa92847494a2c55cca687bd5a1548663ed3313569bcc31c00d53c0c193a1b865dd8a7657
aad3090 [rpc] Adding ::minRelayTxFee amount to getmempoolinfo and updating mempoolminfee help description (Jeff Rade)
Pull request description:
These are RPC document changes from #11475 which is now merged. Took into consideration comments from #11475 and #6941 for this PR.
Biggest change here is when calling `getmempoolinfo`, will now show the `minrelaytxfee` in the JSON reponse (see below):
```
$ bitcoin-cli getmempoolinfo
{
"size": 50,
"bytes": 13102,
"usage": 70480,
"maxmempool": 300000000,
"mempoolminfee": 0.00001000,
"minrelaytxfee": 0.00001000
}
```
Fixes#8953
Tree-SHA512: 5ca583961365ee1cfe6e0d19afb0b41d542e179efee3b3c5f3fcf7d3ebca9cc3eedfd1434a0da40c5eed84fba98b35646fda201e6e61c689b58bee9cbea44b9e
3e1ee31 [Tests] Adding unit tests for GetDifficulty in blockchain.cpp. (sean)
Pull request description:
blockchain.cpp has low unit test coverage. This commit is intended
to start improving its code coverage to reasonable levels. One or more
follow up commits will complete the task that this commit is starting
(though the usefulness of this commit is not dependent upon later
commits).
Note that these tests were not written based upon a specification of how
GetDifficulty *should* work, but rather how it actually *does* work. As
a result, if there are any bugs in the current GetDifficulty
implementation, these unit tests serve to lock them in rather than
expose them.
-- Why has blockchain.cpp been modified if this is a unit testing change?
Since the existing GetDifficulty function relies on a global variable,
chainActive, it was not suitable for unit testing purposes. Both the
existing GetDifficulty function and the unit tests now call through to
a new, more modular version of GetDifficulty that can work on any chain,
not just chainActive.
-- Why does blockchain_tests.cpp directly include blockchain.cpp instead
of blockchain.h?
While the new GetDifficulty function's signature is arguably better than
the old one's, it still isn't great, and doesn't seem to warrant inclusion
as part of the blockchain.h API, especially since only test code is
directly using it. If a better way of exposing the new GetDifficulty
function to unit tests exists, please mention it and the commit will be
updated accordingly.
-- Why is the test fixture named blockchain_difficulty_tests rather than
blockchain_tests?
The Bitcoin Core policy for naming unit test files is to match the the
file under test ("blockchain" becomes "blockchain_tests"). While this
commit complies with that, blockchain.cpp is a massive file, such that
having all of the unit tests in one file will tend towards disorder.
Since there will be a lot more tests added to this file, the intention
is to divide up different types of tests into different test fixtures
within the same file.
Tree-SHA512: a7dda9c2a9414d4819b4d2911f5637891dc19cecbecfc1463846161d2a78793151927a5ab911c69a5d3013f7668e75a1d78a65667cb9d83910cda439cbe84d62
e4d0af4 Loop through the bip9 soft fork deployments instead of hard coding (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
Instead of hard coding which deployment statistics should be listed in the `getblockchaininfo` output, loop through the available deployments (except testdummy) when displaying their deployment info.
Tree-SHA512: 87e503bcf5e0fd379940d5e53320b9cbb4b47d647c66246d46f47c09a941f135e6ce1e8b75dad441ed4c22c3f41992dfde7717414be1d71c771d4ff8fe0e1936
blockchain.cpp has low unit test coverage. This commit is intended
to start improving its code coverage to reasonable levels. One or more
follow up commits will complete the task that this commit is starting
(though the usefulness of this commit is not dependent upon later
commits).
Note that these tests were not written based upon a specification of how
GetDifficulty *should* work, but rather how it actually *does* work. As
a result, if there are any bugs in the current GetDifficulty
implementation, these unit tests serve to lock them in rather than
expose them.
-- Why has blockchain.cpp been modified if this is a unit testing change?
Since the existing GetDifficulty function relies on a global variable,
chainActive, it was not suitable for unit testing purposes. Both the
existing GetDifficulty function and the unit tests now call through to
a new, more modular version of GetDifficulty that can work on any chain,
not just chainActive.
-- Why does blockchain_tests.cpp directly include blockchain.cpp instead
of blockchain.h?
While the new GetDifficulty function's signature is arguably better than
the old one's, it still isn't great, and doesn't seem to warrant inclusion
as part of the blockchain.h API, especially since only test code is
directly using it. If a better way of exposing the new GetDifficulty
function to unit tests exists, please mention it and the commit will be
updated accordingly.
-- Why is the test fixture named blockchain_difficulty_tests rather than
blockchain_tests?
The Bitcoin Core policy for naming unit test files is to match the the
file under test ("blockchain" becomes "blockchain_tests"). While this
commit complies with that, blockchain.cpp is a massive file, such that
having all of the unit tests in one file will tend towards disorder.
Since there will be a lot more tests added to this file, the intention
is to divide up different types of tests into different test fixtures
within the same file.
11413646b [trivial] (whitespace only) fix getblockchaininfo alignment (John Newbery)
bd9c18171 [rpc] Add initialblockdownload to getblockchaininfo (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
Exposing whether the node is in IBD would help for testing, and may be useful in general, particularly for developers.
First discussed in #10357 here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10357#pullrequestreview-59963870
> ... we could simplify this (and possibly other) tests by just adding a way to know if a node is in IBD. I'd like to do that, but I'm not sure it makes sense to complicate this PR with discussion over how that information should be made available. Eg it's not clear to me that the notion of being in IBD is worth exposing to the casual user, versus a hidden rpc call or something, since the definition has changed over time, and may continue to change in the future. But I still do agree that at least for testing purposes it would be far simpler to expose the field somehow...
This PR currently implements the simplest way of doing this: adding an `initialblockdownload` field to `getblockchaininfo`. Other approaches we could take:
1. add a new debug RPC method that exposes `IBD` and potentially other information.
2. add a parameter to `getblockchaininfo`, eg `debug_info`, which would cause it to return debug information including IBD
3. add a query string to the url `?debug=true` which would cause RPCs to return additional debug information.
I quite like the idea of (3). Feedback on these and other approaches very much welcomed!
@sdaftuar @laanwj
Tree-SHA512: a6dedd47f8c9bd38769cc597524466250041136feb33500644b9c48d0ffe4e3eeeb2587b5bbc6420364ebdd2667df807fbb50416f9a7913bbf11a14ea86dc0d4
