diff options
| author | MarcoFalke <falke.marco@gmail.com> | 2018-09-24 14:54:10 -0400 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | MarcoFalke <falke.marco@gmail.com> | 2018-09-24 15:09:11 -0400 |
| commit | 37612099ec7314b15a07d8bac55161ed4e8e7491 (patch) | |
| tree | b5c5013246a6598aad46cf244ac3a2dbd8ed1cc0 /test/functional/rpc_txoutproof.py | |
| parent | 985d28cc90eda7f637b47cda78e74099d3df8734 (diff) | |
| parent | 5eb20f81d9568284dca735e4f770f41a48aa5660 (diff) | |
Merge #13424: Consistently validate txid / blockhash length and encoding in rpc calls
5eb20f81d9 Consistently use ParseHashV to validate hash inputs in rpc (Ben Woosley)
Pull request description:
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)" in that case.
Split from #13420
Tree-SHA512: f0786b41c0d7793ff76e4b2bb35547873070bbf7561d510029e8edb93f59176277efcd4d183b3185532ea69fc0bbbf3dbe9e19362e8017007ae9d51266cd78ae
Diffstat (limited to 'test/functional/rpc_txoutproof.py')
| -rwxr-xr-x | test/functional/rpc_txoutproof.py | 8 |
1 files changed, 7 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/test/functional/rpc_txoutproof.py b/test/functional/rpc_txoutproof.py index 867ba25022..8913b8698d 100755 --- a/test/functional/rpc_txoutproof.py +++ b/test/functional/rpc_txoutproof.py @@ -66,12 +66,18 @@ class MerkleBlockTest(BitcoinTestFramework): txid_spent = txin_spent["txid"] txid_unspent = txid1 if txin_spent["txid"] != txid1 else txid2 + # Invalid txids + assert_raises_rpc_error(-8, "txid must be of length 64 (not 32, for '00000000000000000000000000000000')", self.nodes[2].gettxoutproof, ["00000000000000000000000000000000"], blockhash) + assert_raises_rpc_error(-8, "txid must be hexadecimal string (not 'ZZZ0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000')", self.nodes[2].gettxoutproof, ["ZZZ0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000"], blockhash) + # Invalid blockhashes + assert_raises_rpc_error(-8, "blockhash must be of length 64 (not 32, for '00000000000000000000000000000000')", self.nodes[2].gettxoutproof, [txid_spent], "00000000000000000000000000000000") + assert_raises_rpc_error(-8, "blockhash must be hexadecimal string (not 'ZZZ0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000')", self.nodes[2].gettxoutproof, [txid_spent], "ZZZ0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000") # We can't find the block from a fully-spent tx assert_raises_rpc_error(-5, "Transaction not yet in block", self.nodes[2].gettxoutproof, [txid_spent]) # We can get the proof if we specify the block assert_equal(self.nodes[2].verifytxoutproof(self.nodes[2].gettxoutproof([txid_spent], blockhash)), [txid_spent]) # We can't get the proof if we specify a non-existent block - assert_raises_rpc_error(-5, "Block not found", self.nodes[2].gettxoutproof, [txid_spent], "00000000000000000000000000000000") + assert_raises_rpc_error(-5, "Block not found", self.nodes[2].gettxoutproof, [txid_spent], "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000") # We can get the proof if the transaction is unspent assert_equal(self.nodes[2].verifytxoutproof(self.nodes[2].gettxoutproof([txid_unspent])), [txid_unspent]) # We can get the proof if we provide a list of transactions and one of them is unspent. The ordering of the list should not matter. |