The help of pruneblockchain tells us that the return value is Height of the last block pruned.,… but the implementation naively returns the provided input height and therefore not respecting that pruning can’t be done on all possible blockheight due to the fact that we only prune complete blockfiles (which combine multiple blocks).
This fixes the return value to actually return the correct prune height.
utACK 2b3849d.
Please see 87af0b4229 in https://github.com/promag/bitcoin/tree/pr15991, where the highest pruned block is returned from FindFilesToPruneManual.
Edit: on a second thought your code is more suitable for backport.
Tested ACK 2b3849d, but should fix the extended test test/functional/feature_pruning.py, which gives the following error:
02019-05-12T21:49:52.136000Z TestFramework (ERROR): Assertion failed
1Traceback (most recent call last):
2 File "/Users/joao/Projects/bitcoin/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 175, in main
3 self.run_test()
4 File "./test/functional/feature_pruning.py", line 462, in run_test
5 self.manual_test(3, use_timestamp=False)
6 File "./test/functional/feature_pruning.py", line 312, in manual_test
7 prune(100)
8 File "./test/functional/feature_pruning.py", line 289, in prune
9 assert_equal(ret, expected_ret)
10 File "/Users/joao/Projects/bitcoin/test/functional/test_framework/util.py", line 39, in assert_equal
11 raise AssertionError("not(%s)" % " == ".join(str(arg) for arg in (thing1, thing2) + args))
12AssertionError: not(0 == 100)
With this change I think it makes sense to compare the result with node.getblockchaininfo()['prunedheight'].
I don’t think it needs squashing.
The test will fail otherwise, breaking git bisect.
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
No conflicts as of last run.