- User Since
- Nov 23 2018, 01:26 (29 w, 2 d)
IBD testing done
update per my last comment; we can't properly test 64 byte ECDSA here,
but we can test the multisig length check banning.
Discussions with @Fabien make it clear that this is pretty ugly behaviour, and I've forwarded this problem to Core to see if they have some solutions in mind. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16220
add TODO comments to aid in clean backporting one day (when Core figures out
how they want to fix this)
keep functional test same name to allow diff to show properly
(Also I find it a bit odd that we have a known error that triggers UNKNOWN_ERROR (this is because it works by throwing an exception instead of doing the usual s_error mechanism). Would be good to make it clearer, but that can be a separate diff.)
Fri, Jun 14
rebase for good measure
rebase for conflict
(Note that the functional test is identical to the prior version of this diff.)
rebase onto split parent
rebased onto split parent
rebased onto split-up schnorr removal diffs
rework into first of multiple parts
missed a few spots!
Thu, Jun 13
What I recall is that the new label commands that get added are sorted in correctly, and it's the existing label entries that are wrong. So we do want this Diff, and indeed some old code isn't cleaned up right.
Confirm (note: at this time the mainnet block is 9 confs old).
take out accidental backported line
finally found the bug that was making tests fail! (D3312)
This should in principle work on master now, once rebased...
I tried backporting this one and I noticed that it produced duplicate entries for commands with "label" in the name, and I couldn't figure out why.... Is that still the case now? Can "examine bitcoin-cli help" be added to test plan?
rebase for freshness
Wed, Jun 12
Tue, Jun 11
Mon, Jun 10
Hmm looks like transaction_tests.cpp (e.g., BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(tx_invalid) comment) needs to be updated as well.
remove newline from timing.json
Sun, Jun 9
rebase for D3262 & tweak accordingly
update comment per suggestion
Probably going to abandon this. The motivation was to avoid using int for a bitfield as it has implementation-defined length, but I think I will just use use asserts / tests to get rid of weird platforms.
update per comments
tweak names; add multisig test too