If node 0 is sufficiently fast to announce its block to node 1,
node 1 might already have the block by the time the
node_sync_via_rpc loop gets around to node 1, resulting in the
submitblock result "duplicate-inconclusive" as node 1 has the block,
but prefers an alternate chain.
cee1612 reduce number of lookups in TransactionWithinChainLimit (Gregory Sanders)
af9bedb Test for fix of txn chaining in wallet (Gregory Sanders)
5882c09 CreateTransaction: Don't return success with too-many-ancestor txn (Gregory Sanders)
0b2294a SelectCoinsMinConf: Prefer coins with fewer ancestors (Gregory Sanders)
813ede9 [qa] Update compactblocks test for multi-peer reconstruction (Suhas Daftuar)
7017298 Allow compactblock reconstruction when block is in flight (Suhas Daftuar)
c5c92c4 Update python tests for default tx version=2 (BtcDrak)
dab207e Preserve tx version=1 for certain tests (BtcDrak)
c5d746a tiny test fix for mempool_tests (Alex Morcos)
1f0ca1a Bump default transaction version to 2 (BtcDrak)
1a6eacb [QA] add fundrawtransaction test on a locked wallet with empty keypool (Jonas Schnelli)
c24a4f5 [Wallet] Bugfix: FRT: don't terminate when keypool is empty (Jonas Schnelli)
037159c Remove block-request logic from INV message processing (Matt Corallo)
3451203 [qa] Respond to getheaders and do not assume a getdata on inv (Matt Corallo)
d768f15 [qa] Make comptool push blocks instead of relying on inv-fetch (mrbandrews)
Change check_announcement_of_new_block() to wait specifically for the
announcement of the newly created block, instead of waiting for any
announcement at all. A difficult to reproduce failure in
check_announcement_of_new_block() that happened in a travis build
(https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bitcoin/jobs/175198367) might have happened
because an older announcement was mistaken for the expected one. The error
looked like:
Assertion failed: Failed
File ".../bitcoin/qa/rpc-tests/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 145, in main
self.run_test()
File ".../bitcoin/build/../qa/rpc-tests/p2p-compactblocks.py", line 787, in run_test
self.test_sendcmpct(self.nodes[1], self.segwit_node, 2, old_node=self.old_node)
File ".../bitcoin/build/../qa/rpc-tests/p2p-compactblocks.py", line 201, in test_sendcmpct
check_announcement_of_new_block(node, test_node, lambda p: p.last_cmpctblock is None and p.last_inv is not None)
File ".../bitcoin/build/../qa/rpc-tests/p2p-compactblocks.py", line 194, in check_announcement_of_new_block
assert(predicate(peer))
This commit also changes the assertion failed message above to include more
detailed information for debug.
Motivation for this change is mainly to make sync_blocks behavior easier to
understand. Behavior is unchanged in the normal case when there are only 2
nodes in the rpc_connections set. When there are more than 2 nodes, the
previous "timeout -= wait" statement wouldn't take into account time spent
waiting for all nodes and as a result could lead to blocking for longer than
the requested timeout.
Instead of syncing to max height returned by the waitforblockheight RPC, sync
to the max height returned by the getblockcount RPC.
This change was suggested by Suhas Daftuar <sdaftuar@chaincode.com>.
dac53b5 Modify getblocktxn handler not to drop requests for old blocks (Russell Yanofsky)
55bfddc [qa] Fix stale data bug in test_compactblocks_not_at_tip (Russell Yanofsky)
47e9659 [qa] Fix bug in compactblocks v2 merge (Russell Yanofsky)
