Update the unittest that is meant to catch a transaction that is invalid
because it has a null input. The old test failed not because of that
but because it was considered a coinbase with too large script. This is
already checked with a different test, though.
The new test is *not* a coinbase since it has two inputs, but one of
them is null. This really checks the corresponding code path in
CheckTransaction.
143d173 Use BOOST_CHECK_MESSAGE() rather than BOOST_CHECK() in alerts_tests.cpp and initialize strMiscWarning before calling PartitionCheck()." (Eric Lombrozo)
* -maxuploadtarget can be set in MiB
* if <limit> - ( time-left-in-24h-cycle / 600 * MAX_BLOCK_SIZE ) has reach, stop serve blocks older than one week and filtered blocks
* no action if limit has reached, no guarantee that the target will not be surpassed
* add outbound limit informations to rpc getnettotals
dea8d21 Enable policy enforcing GetMedianTimePast as the end point of lock-time constraints (Mark Friedenbach)
9d55050 Add rules--presently disabled--for using GetMedianTimePast as endpoint for lock-time calculations (Mark Friedenbach)
d80e3cb Support gathering of code coverage data for RPC tests (dexX7)
e3b5e6c Run extended BitcoinJ tests for coverage based on config (dexX7)
45d4ff0 Add config option to enable extended RPC tests for code coverage (dexX7)
8e3a27b Require Python for RPC tests, when using lcov (dexX7)
d425877 Remove coverage and test related files, when cleaning up (dexX7)
4d2a926 Ignore coverage data related and temporary test files (dexX7)
The RPC tests (via `qa/pull-tester/rpc-tests.py`) are now executed,
when gathering code coverage data, for example with `make cov`.
Generating coverage data requires `lcov`, which can installed with:
sudo apt-get install lcov
To also use the BitcoinJ tests, get the test tool:
TOOL_URL=https://github.com/theuni/bitcoind-comparisontool/raw/master/pull-tests-8c6666f.jar
TOOL_HASH=a865332b3827abcde684ab79f5f43c083b0b6a4c97ff5508c79f29fee24f11cd
wget $TOOL_URL -O ./share/BitcoindComparisonTool.jar
echo "$TOOL_HASH ./share/BitcoindComparisonTool.jar" | shasum --algorithm 256 --check
The coverage data can be generated with:
./autogen.sh
./configure --enable-lcov --with-comparison-tool=./share/BitcoindComparisonTool.jar
make
make cov
Optionally the options `--enable-extended-rpc-tests` and
`--enable-comparison-tool-reorg-tests` may be used to enable more time
consuming tests.
It then runs the tests and generates two HTML reports:
- test_bitcoin.coverage/index.html
- total.coverage/index.html
Because Python is (going to be) used to run the RPC tests, when
gathering coverage data with lcov, it is explicitly checked, whether
Python is really available.
Until now there were quite a few leftovers, and only the coverage
related files in `src/` were cleaned, while the ones in the other dirs
remained. `qa/tmp/` is related to the BitcoinJ tests, and `cache/` is
related to RPC tests.
Transactions are not allowed in the memory pool or selected for inclusion in a block until their lock times exceed chainActive.Tip()->GetMedianTimePast(). However blocks including transactions which are only mature under the old rules are still accepted; this is *not* the soft-fork required to actually rely on the new constraint in production.
The lock-time code currently uses CBlock::nTime as the cutoff point for time based locked transactions. This has the unfortunate outcome of creating a perverse incentive for miners to lie about the time of a block in order to collect more fees by including transactions that by wall clock determination have not yet matured. By using CBlockIndex::GetMedianTimePast from the prior block instead, the self-interested miner no longer gains from generating blocks with fraudulent timestamps. Users can compensate for this change by simply adding an hour (3600 seconds) to their time-based lock times.
If enforced, this would be a soft-fork change. This commit only adds the functionality on an unexecuted code path, without changing the behaviour of Bitcoin Core.
Nagle appears to be a significant contributor to latency now that the static
sleeps are gone. Most of our messages are relatively large compared to
IP + TCP so I do not expect this to create enormous overhead.
This may also reduce traffic burstyness somewhat.
Pieter Wuille