diff options
| author | Wladimir J. van der Laan <laanwj@protonmail.com> | 2020-08-13 11:03:47 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Wladimir J. van der Laan <laanwj@protonmail.com> | 2020-08-13 12:12:33 +0200 |
| commit | 6757b3ac8f670cbc188fc7531394e713975c9351 (patch) | |
| tree | 586022e34fc24e47b824c033d8202deacd15505b /test | |
| parent | 1052b09031c63f20390486680f3117d40bb89d88 (diff) | |
| parent | c133cdcdc3397a734d57e05494682bf9bf6f4c15 (diff) | |
Merge #19655: rpc: Catch listsinceblock target_confirmations exceeding block count
c133cdcdc3397a734d57e05494682bf9bf6f4c15 Cap listsinceblock target_confirmations param (Adam Stein)
Pull request description:
This addresses an issue brought up in #19587.
Currently, the `target_confirmations` parameter to `listsinceblock` is not checked for being too large. When `target_confirmations` is greater than one more than the current number of blocks, `listsinceblock` fails with error code -1. In comparison, when `target_confirmations` is less than 1, a -8 "Invalid parameter" error code is thrown.
This PR fixes the issue by returning a -8 "Invalid parameter" error if the `target_confirmations` value corresponds to a block with more confirmations than the genesis block. This happens if `target_confirmations` exceeds one more than the number of blocks.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK c133cdcdc3397a734d57e05494682bf9bf6f4c15
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK c133cdcdc3397a734d57e05494682bf9bf6f4c15. Just suggested changes since last review. Thanks!
Tree-SHA512: 02680f4cb937d2c24d5019abd0ebfa188b8a50679a1e64e9c26bfe5c17eef6aea906832e6e2d492ba8a2ea160041bf185d66795ee691e340f6793db03c21b89a
Diffstat (limited to 'test')
| -rwxr-xr-x | test/functional/wallet_listsinceblock.py | 22 |
1 files changed, 22 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/test/functional/wallet_listsinceblock.py b/test/functional/wallet_listsinceblock.py index 6d51ca6c93..d4131deabf 100755 --- a/test/functional/wallet_listsinceblock.py +++ b/test/functional/wallet_listsinceblock.py @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ class ListSinceBlockTest(BitcoinTestFramework): self.test_double_spend() self.test_double_send() self.double_spends_filtered() + self.test_targetconfirmations() def test_no_blockhash(self): self.log.info("Test no blockhash") @@ -74,6 +75,27 @@ class ListSinceBlockTest(BitcoinTestFramework): assert_raises_rpc_error(-8, "blockhash must be hexadecimal string (not 'Z000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000')", self.nodes[0].listsinceblock, "Z000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000") + def test_targetconfirmations(self): + ''' + This tests when the value of target_confirmations exceeds the number of + blocks in the main chain. In this case, the genesis block hash should be + given for the `lastblock` property. If target_confirmations is < 1, then + a -8 invalid parameter error is thrown. + ''' + self.log.info("Test target_confirmations") + blockhash, = self.nodes[2].generate(1) + blockheight = self.nodes[2].getblockheader(blockhash)['height'] + self.sync_all() + + assert_equal( + self.nodes[0].getblockhash(0), + self.nodes[0].listsinceblock(blockhash, blockheight + 1)['lastblock']) + assert_equal( + self.nodes[0].getblockhash(0), + self.nodes[0].listsinceblock(blockhash, blockheight + 1000)['lastblock']) + assert_raises_rpc_error(-8, "Invalid parameter", + self.nodes[0].listsinceblock, blockhash, 0) + def test_reorg(self): ''' `listsinceblock` did not behave correctly when handed a block that was |