Merge #11774: [tests] Rename functional tests

6f881cc880 [tests] Remove EXPECTED_VIOLATION_COUNT (Anthony Towns)
3150b3fea7 [tests] Rename misc functional tests. (Anthony Towns)
81b79f2c39 [tests] Rename rpc_* functional tests. (Anthony Towns)
61b8f7f273 [tests] Rename p2p_* functional tests. (Anthony Towns)
90600bc7db [tests] Rename wallet_* functional tests. (Anthony Towns)
ca6523d0c8 [tests] Rename feature_* functional tests. (Anthony Towns)

Pull request description:

  This PR changes the functional tests to have a consistent naming scheme:

      tests for individual RPC methods are named rpc_...
      tests for interfaces (REST, ZMQ, RPC features) are named interface_...
      tests that explicitly test the p2p interface are named p2p_...
      tests for wallet features are named wallet_...
      tests for mining features are named mining_...
      tests for mempool behaviour are named mempool_...
      tests for full features that aren't wallet/mining/mempool are named feature_...

  Rationale: it's sometimes difficult for new contributors to know what's already covered by existing tests and where new tests should be added. Naming in a consistent fashion makes it easier to see what's already covered at a glance.

Tree-SHA512: 4246790552d42bbd95f6d5bdf67702b81b3b2c583ce7eaf1fe6d8e254721279b47315973c6e9ae82dad6e4c747f12188160764bf2624c0f8f3b4d39330ec8b16

1 files changed, 280 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/test/functional/wallet_listsinceblock.py b/test/functional/wallet_listsinceblock.py
new file mode 100755
index 0000000000..67e7744bf8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/test/functional/wallet_listsinceblock.py
@@ -0,0 +1,280 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env python3
+# Copyright (c) 2017 The Bitcoin Core developers
+# Distributed under the MIT software license, see the accompanying
+# file COPYING or http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php.
+"""Test the listsincelast RPC."""
+
+from test_framework.test_framework import BitcoinTestFramework
+from test_framework.util import assert_equal, assert_array_result, assert_raises_rpc_error
+
+class ListSinceBlockTest (BitcoinTestFramework):
+    def set_test_params(self):
+        self.num_nodes = 4
+        self.setup_clean_chain = True
+
+    def run_test(self):
+        self.nodes[2].generate(101)
+        self.sync_all()
+
+        self.test_no_blockhash()
+        self.test_invalid_blockhash()
+        self.test_reorg()
+        self.test_double_spend()
+        self.test_double_send()
+
+    def test_no_blockhash(self):
+        txid = self.nodes[2].sendtoaddress(self.nodes[0].getnewaddress(), 1)
+        blockhash, = self.nodes[2].generate(1)
+        self.sync_all()
+
+        txs = self.nodes[0].listtransactions()
+        assert_array_result(txs, {"txid": txid}, {
+            "category": "receive",
+            "amount": 1,
+            "blockhash": blockhash,
+            "confirmations": 1,
+        })
+        assert_equal(
+            self.nodes[0].listsinceblock(),
+            {"lastblock": blockhash,
+             "removed": [],
+             "transactions": txs})
+        assert_equal(
+            self.nodes[0].listsinceblock(""),
+            {"lastblock": blockhash,
+             "removed": [],
+             "transactions": txs})
+
+    def test_invalid_blockhash(self):
+        assert_raises_rpc_error(-5, "Block not found", self.nodes[0].listsinceblock,
+                                "42759cde25462784395a337460bde75f58e73d3f08bd31fdc3507cbac856a2c4")
+        assert_raises_rpc_error(-5, "Block not found", self.nodes[0].listsinceblock,
+                                "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000")
+        assert_raises_rpc_error(-5, "Block not found", self.nodes[0].listsinceblock,
+                                "invalid-hex")
+
+    def test_reorg(self):
+        '''
+        `listsinceblock` did not behave correctly when handed a block that was
+        no longer in the main chain:
+
+             ab0
+          /       \
+        aa1 [tx0]   bb1
+         |           |
+        aa2         bb2
+         |           |
+        aa3         bb3
+                     |
+                    bb4
+
+        Consider a client that has only seen block `aa3` above. It asks the node
+        to `listsinceblock aa3`. But at some point prior the main chain switched
+        to the bb chain.
+
+        Previously: listsinceblock would find height=4 for block aa3 and compare
+        this to height=5 for the tip of the chain (bb4). It would then return
+        results restricted to bb3-bb4.
+
+        Now: listsinceblock finds the fork at ab0 and returns results in the
+        range bb1-bb4.
+
+        This test only checks that [tx0] is present.
+        '''
+
+        # Split network into two
+        self.split_network()
+
+        # send to nodes[0] from nodes[2]
+        senttx = self.nodes[2].sendtoaddress(self.nodes[0].getnewaddress(), 1)
+
+        # generate on both sides
+        lastblockhash = self.nodes[1].generate(6)[5]
+        self.nodes[2].generate(7)
+        self.log.info('lastblockhash=%s' % (lastblockhash))
+
+        self.sync_all([self.nodes[:2], self.nodes[2:]])
+
+        self.join_network()
+
+        # listsinceblock(lastblockhash) should now include tx, as seen from nodes[0]
+        lsbres = self.nodes[0].listsinceblock(lastblockhash)
+        found = False
+        for tx in lsbres['transactions']:
+            if tx['txid'] == senttx:
+                found = True
+                break
+        assert found
+
+    def test_double_spend(self):
+        '''
+        This tests the case where the same UTXO is spent twice on two separate
+        blocks as part of a reorg.
+
+             ab0
+          /       \
+        aa1 [tx1]   bb1 [tx2]
+         |           |
+        aa2         bb2
+         |           |
+        aa3         bb3
+                     |
+                    bb4
+
+        Problematic case:
+
+        1. User 1 receives BTC in tx1 from utxo1 in block aa1.
+        2. User 2 receives BTC in tx2 from utxo1 (same) in block bb1
+        3. User 1 sees 2 confirmations at block aa3.
+        4. Reorg into bb chain.
+        5. User 1 asks `listsinceblock aa3` and does not see that tx1 is now
+           invalidated.
+
+        Currently the solution to this is to detect that a reorg'd block is
+        asked for in listsinceblock, and to iterate back over existing blocks up
+        until the fork point, and to include all transactions that relate to the
+        node wallet.
+        '''
+
+        self.sync_all()
+
+        # Split network into two
+        self.split_network()
+
+        # share utxo between nodes[1] and nodes[2]
+        utxos = self.nodes[2].listunspent()
+        utxo = utxos[0]
+        privkey = self.nodes[2].dumpprivkey(utxo['address'])
+        self.nodes[1].importprivkey(privkey)
+
+        # send from nodes[1] using utxo to nodes[0]
+        change = '%.8f' % (float(utxo['amount']) - 1.0003)
+        recipientDict = {
+            self.nodes[0].getnewaddress(): 1,
+            self.nodes[1].getnewaddress(): change,
+        }
+        utxoDicts = [{
+            'txid': utxo['txid'],
+            'vout': utxo['vout'],
+        }]
+        txid1 = self.nodes[1].sendrawtransaction(
+            self.nodes[1].signrawtransaction(
+                self.nodes[1].createrawtransaction(utxoDicts, recipientDict))['hex'])
+
+        # send from nodes[2] using utxo to nodes[3]
+        recipientDict2 = {
+            self.nodes[3].getnewaddress(): 1,
+            self.nodes[2].getnewaddress(): change,
+        }
+        self.nodes[2].sendrawtransaction(
+            self.nodes[2].signrawtransaction(
+                self.nodes[2].createrawtransaction(utxoDicts, recipientDict2))['hex'])
+
+        # generate on both sides
+        lastblockhash = self.nodes[1].generate(3)[2]
+        self.nodes[2].generate(4)
+
+        self.join_network()
+
+        self.sync_all()
+
+        # gettransaction should work for txid1
+        assert self.nodes[0].gettransaction(txid1)['txid'] == txid1, "gettransaction failed to find txid1"
+
+        # listsinceblock(lastblockhash) should now include txid1, as seen from nodes[0]
+        lsbres = self.nodes[0].listsinceblock(lastblockhash)
+        assert any(tx['txid'] == txid1 for tx in lsbres['removed'])
+
+        # but it should not include 'removed' if include_removed=false
+        lsbres2 = self.nodes[0].listsinceblock(blockhash=lastblockhash, include_removed=False)
+        assert 'removed' not in lsbres2
+
+    def test_double_send(self):
+        '''
+        This tests the case where the same transaction is submitted twice on two
+        separate blocks as part of a reorg. The former will vanish and the
+        latter will appear as the true transaction (with confirmations dropping
+        as a result).
+
+             ab0
+          /       \
+        aa1 [tx1]   bb1
+         |           |
+        aa2         bb2
+         |           |
+        aa3         bb3 [tx1]
+                     |
+                    bb4
+
+        Asserted:
+
+        1. tx1 is listed in listsinceblock.
+        2. It is included in 'removed' as it was removed, even though it is now
+           present in a different block.
+        3. It is listed with a confirmations count of 2 (bb3, bb4), not
+           3 (aa1, aa2, aa3).
+        '''
+
+        self.sync_all()
+
+        # Split network into two
+        self.split_network()
+
+        # create and sign a transaction
+        utxos = self.nodes[2].listunspent()
+        utxo = utxos[0]
+        change = '%.8f' % (float(utxo['amount']) - 1.0003)
+        recipientDict = {
+            self.nodes[0].getnewaddress(): 1,
+            self.nodes[2].getnewaddress(): change,
+        }
+        utxoDicts = [{
+            'txid': utxo['txid'],
+            'vout': utxo['vout'],
+        }]
+        signedtxres = self.nodes[2].signrawtransaction(
+                self.nodes[2].createrawtransaction(utxoDicts, recipientDict))
+        assert signedtxres['complete']
+
+        signedtx = signedtxres['hex']
+
+        # send from nodes[1]; this will end up in aa1
+        txid1 = self.nodes[1].sendrawtransaction(signedtx)
+
+        # generate bb1-bb2 on right side
+        self.nodes[2].generate(2)
+
+        # send from nodes[2]; this will end up in bb3
+        txid2 = self.nodes[2].sendrawtransaction(signedtx)
+
+        assert_equal(txid1, txid2)
+
+        # generate on both sides
+        lastblockhash = self.nodes[1].generate(3)[2]
+        self.nodes[2].generate(2)
+
+        self.join_network()
+
+        self.sync_all()
+
+        # gettransaction should work for txid1
+        self.nodes[0].gettransaction(txid1)
+
+        # listsinceblock(lastblockhash) should now include txid1 in transactions
+        # as well as in removed
+        lsbres = self.nodes[0].listsinceblock(lastblockhash)
+        assert any(tx['txid'] == txid1 for tx in lsbres['transactions'])
+        assert any(tx['txid'] == txid1 for tx in lsbres['removed'])
+
+        # find transaction and ensure confirmations is valid
+        for tx in lsbres['transactions']:
+            if tx['txid'] == txid1:
+                assert_equal(tx['confirmations'], 2)
+
+        # the same check for the removed array; confirmations should STILL be 2
+        for tx in lsbres['removed']:
+            if tx['txid'] == txid1:
+                assert_equal(tx['confirmations'], 2)
+
+if __name__ == '__main__':
+    ListSinceBlockTest().main()