bitcoin-cli listreceivedbyaddress 0 true true 2NABbUr9yeRCp1oUCtVmgJF8HGRCo3ifpTT
gives an error: error: Error parsing JSON:2NABbUr9yeRCp1oUCtVmgJF8HGRCo3ifpTT
as it's trying to parse the address as json. so you'd have to write:
bitcoin-cli listreceivedbyaddress 0 true true '"2NABbUr9yeRCp1oUCtVmgJF8HGRCo3ifpTT"'
which is clumsy and inconsistent with other RPC methods as well as the help file
can you try the following patch?
diff --git a/src/rpc/client.cpp b/src/rpc/client.cpp
index f4d44fc809bffc4c40fbbb5882bcdb2d4a4be720..438d1cb5cb158e0093671093477bec156248d516 100644
--- a/src/rpc/client.cpp
+++ b/src/rpc/client.cpp
@@ -45,7 +45,6 @@ static const CRPCConvertParam vRPCConvertParams[] =
{ "listreceivedbyaddress", 0, "minconf" },
{ "listreceivedbyaddress", 1, "include_empty" },
{ "listreceivedbyaddress", 2, "include_watchonly" },
- { "listreceivedbyaddress", 3, "address_filter" },
{ "listreceivedbylabel", 0, "minconf" },
{ "listreceivedbylabel", 1, "include_empty" },
{ "listreceivedbylabel", 2, "include_watchonly" },
(the fourth argument to listreceivedbyaddress being called address_filter suggests that it can take other JSON expressions, such as a list, but it's really only a JSON string, so there's no reason to treat it differently from other string parameters)
apparently this was mistakingly introduced in 8ee08120de0b6765d8b9081e06f743e15653f8e4
Looks good. Also I think the same thing is happening with the new getblockstats
Would be nice to submit the patch with a corresponding test to get this covered?
Can confirm that something similar is happening with getblockstats by making the following changes to the rpc_getblockstats.py tests:
diff --git a/test/functional/rpc_getblockstats.py b/test/functional/rpc_getblockstats.py
index b24bed6ad..0317e63b8 100755
--- a/test/functional/rpc_getblockstats.py
+++ b/test/functional/rpc_getblockstats.py
@@ -51,6 +51,9 @@ class GetblockstatsTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
def get_stats(self):
return [self.nodes[0].getblockstats(hash_or_height=self.start_height + i) for i in range(self.max_stat_pos+1)]
+ def get_stats_cli(self):
+ return [self.nodes[0].cli.getblockstats(self.start_height + i) for i in range(self.max_stat_pos+1)]
+
def generate_test_data(self, filename):
mocktime = time.time()
self.nodes[0].generate(101)
@@ -176,5 +179,14 @@ class GetblockstatsTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
assert_raises_rpc_error(-5, 'Block not found', self.nodes[0].getblockstats,
hash_or_height='000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f')
+ # Test for regressions on [#14173](/bitcoin-bitcoin/14173/)
+ cli_stats = self.get_stats_cli()
+ assert_equal(set(cli_stats[0].keys()), set(expected_keys))
+
+ for i in range(self.max_stat_pos+1):
+ blockhash = self.expected_stats[i]['blockhash']
+ stats_by_hash = self.nodes[0].cli.getblockstats(hash_or_height=blockhash)
+ assert_equal(stats_by_hash, self.expected_stats[i])
+
if __name__ == '__main__':
GetblockstatsTest().main()
The fix here is less straightforward since the first parameter can be either a number (in which case it needs to be converted using ParseNonRFCJSONValue) or a string (in which case conversion will cause a JSON parsing error). At present conversion is always attempted, causing blockhashes to fail unless explicitly enclosed with double quotes. The crux of the issue being this line here where paths diverge for string and numeric RPC parameters in a way which is not currently reconcilable.
I've created a simple fix (#14417) for the initial issue described here. From my initial analysis above it seems as though fixing other similar issues may involve rethinking ParseNonRFCJsonValue and its associated code a bit.