test: use MiniWallet for mining_prioritisetransaction.py#24839
Merged
maflcko merged 2 commits intobitcoin:masterfrom Jun 13, 2022
Merged
Conversation
theStack
force-pushed
the
202204-test-use_MiniWallet_for_mining_prioritisetransaction
branch
from
2f7f8fb to
b33bfe3
Compare
maflcko
approved these changes
Apr 15, 2022
This test can now be run even with the Bitcoin Core wallet disabled.
theStack
force-pushed
the
202204-test-use_MiniWallet_for_mining_prioritisetransaction
branch
from
b33bfe3 to
9763c95
Compare
theStack
force-pushed
the
202204-test-use_MiniWallet_for_mining_prioritisetransaction
branch
from
9763c95 to
b167e53
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
Force-pushed with suggestions from MarcoFalke taken into account. There is now a second commit which takes use of the brand-new shiny MiniWallet-variant of
|
Member
|
@ayush933 want to take another look? |
ayush933
approved these changes
Apr 20, 2022
kouloumos
approved these changes
Jun 1, 2022
| # transaction to make it large. See gen_return_txouts() above. | ||
| def create_lots_of_big_transactions(node, txouts, utxos, num, fee): | ||
| addr = node.getnewaddress() | ||
| def create_lots_of_big_transactions(mini_wallet, node, fee, tx_batch_size, txouts, utxos=None): |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: create_lots_of_big_transactions is not introduced in this PR, but maybe include "send" in the name, to clearly indicate functionality?
furszy
approved these changes
Jun 10, 2022
Comment on lines
+559
to
+560
| use_internal_utxos = utxos is None | ||
| for _ in range(tx_batch_size): |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
tiny nit:
if utxos is not empty, maybe assert that tx_batch_size >= len(utxos).
theStack
deleted the
202204-test-use_MiniWallet_for_mining_prioritisetransaction
branch
sidhujag
pushed a commit
to syscoin/syscoin
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 13, 2022
maflcko
reviewed
Jun 14, 2022
| utxos = create_confirmed_utxos(self, self.relayfee, self.nodes[0], utxo_count) | ||
| utxos = self.wallet.send_self_transfer_multi(from_node=self.nodes[0], num_outputs=utxo_count)['new_utxos'] | ||
| self.generate(self.wallet, 1) | ||
| assert_equal(len(self.nodes[0].getrawmempool()), 0) |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I really wonder if it is worth it to move this to create_confirmed_utxos? Seems 2-3 LOC duplicated everywhere are fine compared to 1 LOC + import + definition in separate file?
Maybe just remove create_confirmed_utxos?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right, I agree that it's not worth it, calling send_self_transfer_multi with a subsequent generate is simple enough. Opened a follow-up PR: #25374
maflcko
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 15, 2022
42b2fdf test: remove unused `create_confirmed_utxos` helper (Sebastian Falbesoner) Pull request description: After more and more non-wallet tests have been converted to use MiniWallet (#25087, #24839, #24749 etc.), the `create_confirmed_utxos` helper is now not used anymore and can be removed. An alternative would be to create a MiniWallet version of `create_confirmed_utxos`, but it seems that it's not worth it, considering that would be only two lines (calling MiniWallet's `send_self_transfer_multi` with a subsequent `generate` call), see comment #24839 (comment). ACKs for top commit: MarcoFalke: cr ACK 42b2fdf Tree-SHA512: 274418156265a6071940f53cbcd77f6779af5e951cfa1e5efbf07a5c61487b521ee19f36b4105e5c0a808139d121e5e262e77525ea3d1486a0421f01abcf58fd
sidhujag
pushed a commit
to syscoin/syscoin
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 15, 2022
42b2fdf test: remove unused `create_confirmed_utxos` helper (Sebastian Falbesoner) Pull request description: After more and more non-wallet tests have been converted to use MiniWallet (bitcoin#25087, bitcoin#24839, bitcoin#24749 etc.), the `create_confirmed_utxos` helper is now not used anymore and can be removed. An alternative would be to create a MiniWallet version of `create_confirmed_utxos`, but it seems that it's not worth it, considering that would be only two lines (calling MiniWallet's `send_self_transfer_multi` with a subsequent `generate` call), see comment bitcoin#24839 (comment). ACKs for top commit: MarcoFalke: cr ACK 42b2fdf Tree-SHA512: 274418156265a6071940f53cbcd77f6779af5e951cfa1e5efbf07a5c61487b521ee19f36b4105e5c0a808139d121e5e262e77525ea3d1486a0421f01abcf58fd
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
7 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR enables one more of the non-wallet functional tests (mining_prioritisetransaction.py) to be run even with the Bitcoin Code wallet by using the MiniWallet instead, as proposed in #20078. Note that the adapted helper function
create_lots_of_big_transactionsis currently only used in this test, i.e. there was no need to change any others.