Enable error “Multiple values specified for -setting in same section of config file.”, for ALLOW_ANY settings that don’t specify ALLOW_LIST.
Instead of silently ignoring settings, this change makes it an error to provide an ambiguous config file that provides assigns multiple values to a single-value setting. Change includes release notes.
Part of the motivation for this change is to improve usability and prevent settings that look valid from being silently ignored. Another motivation is to be able to remove confusing “reverse precedence” logic in #17581
fanquake added the label
Utils/log/libs
on Nov 15, 2019
fanquake added the label
Refactoring
on Nov 15, 2019
DrahtBot
commented at 0:31 am on November 16, 2019:
contributor
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.
in
src/util/system.cpp:969
in
e81c6ea28doutdated
808+ bool negated = !InterpretKey(section, key, &option.second);
809+ Optional<unsigned int> flags = GetArgFlags('-' + key);
810 if (flags) {
811- if (!CheckValid(key, value, flags, error)) {
812+ if (!(*flags & ALLOW_LIST) && m_settings.ro_config[section].count(key)) {
813+ error = strprintf("Multiple values specified for -%s in same section of config file.", key);
JeremyRubin
commented at 9:18 pm on November 18, 2019:
Perhaps only err if the value differs?
JeremyRubin
commented at 9:23 pm on November 18, 2019:
contributor
Concept ACK.
Curious if you think this has a high likelihood of breaking a lot of configs in the wild – but I suppose it’s worth it, as anything which could be intentionally repeated gets the new flag.
One interesting point: if something is not allow list, but receives a new param that is identical to the last set one, we could allow it? Something like this could be useful for certain bool settings if config files are being merged.
Noting for reference tracking that #12763 will require an update after this is merged.
ryanofsky force-pushed
on Nov 21, 2019
ryanofsky force-pushed
on Nov 24, 2019
ryanofsky referenced this in commit
8c93069558
on Nov 24, 2019
ryanofsky renamed this:
util: Forbid ambiguous repeated assignments in config file
util: Forbid ambiguous multiple assignments in config file
on Nov 24, 2019
Khailand69 approved
DrahtBot added the label
Needs rebase
on Dec 19, 2019
ryanofsky force-pushed
on Dec 20, 2019
ryanofsky referenced this in commit
2dab31be62
on Dec 20, 2019
DrahtBot removed the label
Needs rebase
on Dec 20, 2019
ajtowns
commented at 5:16 am on January 9, 2020:
contributor
Weak concept NACK on this, precedence in config files might be confusing but it’s not ambiguous and specifying setting=1 \n setting=2 is something you might plausibly see in the wild, so this change has the potential to cause systems to not restart correctly… Maybe having a warning rather than an error for a release would be better? Still, better to make the change once for everything than gradually as things get switched away from ALLOW_ANY to something more specific.
ryanofsky
commented at 8:18 pm on January 9, 2020:
contributor
so this change has the potential to cause systems to not restart correctly…
This description sounds a little misleading to me. It is true that if someone had an ambiguous config file, and they updated to a new bitcoin version and then restarted without testing, they would see a “Multiple values specified for -foo in same section of config file” init error. But there wouldn’t be a question of correctness, or risk that the new version would start up using different settings than the old version.
Personally, I don’t think a debug log warning would be as good as an error here, given experience with issues like #15629 where warnings have seemed pretty easy to miss. I understand your concern about the case where someone upgrades their version of bitcoin and sees an error about an insignificant ambiguity in their config file. But I wouldn’t want to forget about cases where someone could upgrade bitcoin be prompted to fix config errors that actually affected their privacy or security.
I wonder what you think about Jeremy’s suggestion to prevent errors in more spurious cases where a setting is repeated but the value doesn’t change: #17493#pullrequestreview-318636254. It’d be pretty easy to tweak the PR to avoid triggering errors in these cases.
ajtowns
commented at 5:52 am on January 23, 2020:
contributor
This description sounds a little misleading to me.
Sure; I meant “restart correctly” as in “keep working the way things are supposed to rather than gratuitously break and cause the sysadmin headaches” :) But yeah, I agree a warning everyone will miss isn’t that helpful, and there aren’t any better approaches coming to mind; really that’s what release notes and being careful about upgrades are for.
I’d probably wait to see someone using it in real life before adding special cases for duplicate settings with the same param/value.
DrahtBot added the label
Needs rebase
on Jan 30, 2020
ryanofsky force-pushed
on Sep 28, 2020
DrahtBot removed the label
Needs rebase
on Sep 28, 2020
ryanofsky referenced this in commit
6285d00931
on Sep 28, 2020
ryanofsky referenced this in commit
4c30ac5006
on Sep 28, 2020
DrahtBot added the label
Needs rebase
on Sep 29, 2020
maflcko referenced this in commit
11cbd4bb54
on Jan 21, 2021
ryanofsky force-pushed
on Apr 13, 2021
DrahtBot removed the label
Needs rebase
on Apr 13, 2021
ryanofsky referenced this in commit
a9bc4b2151
on Apr 13, 2021
ryanofsky referenced this in commit
6c5a7d55e9
on Apr 13, 2021
ryanofsky referenced this in commit
58efdc25a2
on Apr 14, 2021
ryanofsky referenced this in commit
33efdead6e
on Apr 14, 2021
DrahtBot added the label
Needs rebase
on Apr 15, 2021
ryanofsky force-pushed
on Jun 16, 2021
DrahtBot removed the label
Needs rebase
on Jun 16, 2021
ryanofsky referenced this in commit
4b35d9dd2f
on Jun 17, 2021
ryanofsky referenced this in commit
2d7e4aab89
on Jun 17, 2021
DrahtBot added the label
Needs rebase
on Aug 22, 2021
ryanofsky force-pushed
on Dec 30, 2021
ryanofsky referenced this in commit
3376e470a0
on Dec 30, 2021
ryanofsky referenced this in commit
0eddb582bf
on Dec 30, 2021
DrahtBot removed the label
Needs rebase
on Dec 30, 2021
DrahtBot added the label
Needs rebase
on Feb 9, 2022
uvhw referenced this in commit
47d44ccc3e
on Feb 14, 2022
ryanofsky force-pushed
on Sep 27, 2022
DrahtBot removed the label
Needs rebase
on Sep 27, 2022
ryanofsky referenced this in commit
bf8d006a74
on Sep 27, 2022
ryanofsky referenced this in commit
9f9c377780
on Sep 27, 2022
DrahtBot added the label
Needs rebase
on Nov 15, 2022
ryanofsky force-pushed
on Nov 29, 2022
DrahtBot removed the label
Needs rebase
on Nov 30, 2022
DrahtBot added the label
Needs rebase
on Jan 11, 2023
fanquake marked this as a draft
on Feb 8, 2023
fanquake
commented at 11:25 am on February 8, 2023:
member
Moved this to draft for now, given it’s based on multiple other PRs, some of which are also drafts.
ryanofsky force-pushed
on Feb 15, 2023
ryanofsky referenced this in commit
a057e0c38f
on Feb 15, 2023
ryanofsky referenced this in commit
44a9c4353d
on Feb 15, 2023
DrahtBot removed the label
Needs rebase
on Feb 15, 2023
DrahtBot added the label
Needs rebase
on Mar 20, 2023
ryanofsky force-pushed
on May 3, 2023
ryanofsky referenced this in commit
55b31d8a92
on May 3, 2023
ryanofsky referenced this in commit
40476a8b5d
on May 3, 2023
DrahtBot removed the label
Needs rebase
on May 3, 2023
DrahtBot added the label
Needs rebase
on May 9, 2023
vijaydasmp referenced this in commit
7c9205be08
on Nov 7, 2023
vijaydasmp referenced this in commit
9c834f5546
on Nov 8, 2023
vijaydasmp referenced this in commit
087ebdb8f5
on Nov 9, 2023
vijaydasmp referenced this in commit
b6de87d245
on Nov 9, 2023
vijaydasmp referenced this in commit
93d3f1e777
on Nov 25, 2023
vijaydasmp referenced this in commit
4a2d0ebd24
on Nov 25, 2023
vijaydasmp referenced this in commit
38e6e86035
on Nov 26, 2023
vijaydasmp referenced this in commit
3fa8e6127f
on Nov 27, 2023
vijaydasmp referenced this in commit
73d0cceff7
on Dec 2, 2023
vijaydasmp referenced this in commit
dd7aeee838
on Dec 4, 2023
PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit
ac7a1cd2b7
on Dec 6, 2023
UdjinM6 referenced this in commit
b8267bb5a2
on Dec 8, 2023
ryanofsky force-pushed
on Jul 19, 2024
ryanofsky referenced this in commit
b6da6c3af0
on Jul 19, 2024
ryanofsky referenced this in commit
67c9fe77eb
on Jul 19, 2024
DrahtBot removed the label
Needs rebase
on Jul 20, 2024
doc: Add detailed ArgsManager type flag documention
This commit just adds documentation for the type flags. The flags are actually
implemented in the following two commits.
d2c9af993a
Add ArgsManager flags to parse and validate settings on startup
This commit implements support for new ALLOW_BOOL, ALLOW_INT, ALLOW_STRING, and
ALLOW_LIST flags by validating settings with these flags earlier on startup and
providing detailed error messages to users.
The new flags implement stricter error checking than ALLOW_ANY. For example, a
double negated option like -nosetting=0 is treated like an error instead of
true, and an unrecognized bool value like -setting=true is treated like an
error instead of false. And if a non-list setting is assigned multiple times in
the same section of a configuration file, the later assignments trigger errors
instead of being silently ignored.
The new flags also provide type information that allows ArgsManager
GetSettings() and GetSettingsList() methods to return typed integer and boolean
values instead of unparsed strings.
The changes in this commit have no effect on current application behavior
because the new flags are only used in unit tests. The existing ALLOW_ANY
checks in the argsman_tests/CheckValueTest confirm that no behavior is changing
for current settings, which use ALLOW_ANY.
d03b7e94cd
Update ArgManager GetArg helper methods to work better with ALLOW flags
Update GetArg, GetArgs, GetBoolArg, and GetIntArg helper methods to work
conveniently with ALLOW_BOOL, ALLOW_INT, and ALLOW_STRING flags.
The GetArg methods are convenience wrappers around the GetSetting method. The
GetSetting method returns the originally parsed settings values in their
declared bool/int/string types, while the GetArg wrappers provide extra
type-coercion and default-value fallback features as additional conveniences
for callers.
This commit makes two changes to GetArg, GetArgs, GetBoolArg, and GetIntArg
helper methods when BOOL/INT/STRING flags are used:
1. GetArg methods will now raise errors if they are called with inconsistent
flags. For example, GetArgs will raise a logic_error if it is called on a
non-LIST setting, GetIntArg will raise a logic_error if it is called
on a non-INT setting.
2. GetArg methods will now avoid various type coersion footguns when they are
called on new BOOL/INT/STRING settings. Existing ALLOW_ANY settings are
unaffected. For example, negated settings will return "" empty strings
instead of "0" strings (in the past the "0" strings caused strangeness like
"-nowallet" options creating wallet files named "0"). The new behaviors are
fully specified and checked by the `CheckValueTest` unit test.
The ergonomics of the GetArg helper methods are subjective and the behaviors
they implement can be nitpicked and debated endlessly. But behavior of these
helper methods does not dictate application behavior, and they can be bypassed
by calling GetSetting and GetSettingList methods instead. If it's necessary,
behavior of these helper methods can also be changed again in the future.
The changes have no effect on current application behavior because the new
flags are only used in unit tests. The `setting_args` unit test and ALLOW_ANY
checks in the `CheckValueTest` unit test are unchanged and confirm that
`GetArg` methods behave the same as before for ALLOW_ANY flags (returning the
same values and throwing the same exceptions).
1d135e7041
test: Add tests to demonstrate usage of ArgsManager flags
test: Add test for settings.json parsing with type flags
The type flags aren't currently used to validate or convert settings in the
settings.json file, but they should be in the future. Add test to check current
behavior that can be extended when flags are applied.
Co-authored-by: Hodlinator <172445034+hodlinator@users.noreply.github.com>
1e37bcf9fc
ryanofsky referenced this in commit
da12df760d
on Aug 2, 2024
DrahtBot added the label
Needs rebase
on Aug 5, 2024
ryanofsky referenced this in commit
35636a82a9
on Aug 5, 2024
scripted-diff: Add ALLOW_LIST flag to arguments retrieved with GetArgs
This change has no effect on behavior, and is basically just a documentation
change at this point. The ALLOW_LIST flag is currently ignored unless
ALLOW_BOOL, ALLOW_INT, or ALLOW_STRING flags are also present, and these flags
are not used yet.
-BEGIN VERIFY SCRIPT-
for f in `git grep -n 'GetArgs(' | grep -v _tests | sed -n 's/.*GetArgs("\([^"]\+\)".*/\1/p' | sort -u`; do
git grep -l -- "$f" | xargs sed -i "/AddArg(\"$f[=\"]/ s/ArgsManager::ALLOW_ANY/& | ArgsManager::ALLOW_LIST/g"
done
-END VERIFY SCRIPT-
ed89cf7d52
refactor: Fix more ALLOW_LIST arguments
- Remove ALLOW_LIST flag from bitcoin-wallet -wallet and -debug arguments. They
are list arguments for bitcoind, but single arguments for bitcoin-wallet.
- Add ALLOW_LIST flag to -includeconf arg (missed by scripted diff since it's
not accessed through GetArgs)
- Add ALLOW_LIST flag to -debug, -loglevel, -whitebind, and -whitelist args
(missed by scripted diff due to line breaks in AddArgs calls)
- Add ALLOW_LIST flag to -zmq args (missed by scripted diff due to programmatic
GetArgs calls)
This change has no effect on behavior, and is basically just a documentation
change at this point. The ALLOW_LIST flag is currently ignored unless
ALLOW_BOOL, ALLOW_INT, or ALLOW_STRING flags are also present, and these flags
are not used yet.
a9e8404ca9
Always reject empty -rpcauth="" arguments
Previous behavior was nonsensical:
- If an empty -rpcauth="" argument was specified as the last command
line argument, it would cause all other -rpcauth arguments to be
ignored.
- If an empty -rpcauth="" argument was specified on the command line
followed by any nonempty -rpcauth argument, it would cause an error.
- If an empty "rpcauth=" line was specified after non-empty rpcauth line
it would cause an error.
- If an empty "rpcauth=" line in a config file was the entry in the
config file it would cause all rpcauth entries to be ignored, unless
the last command line argument was a nonempty -rpcauth argument, in
which case it would be ignored.
New behavior is simple:
- If an empty "rpcauth=" config line or -rpcauth="" command line
argument is used it will cause an error
Previous behavior was inconsistent: if -blockfilterindex or
-blockfilterindex="" arguments were specified they would normally enable all
block filter indexes, but could also trigger "Unknown -blockfilterindex value"
errors if followed by later -blockfilterindex arguments.
It was confusing that the same -blockfilterindex options could sometime trigger
errors and sometimes not depending on option position. It was also confusing
that an empty -blockfilterindex="" setting could enable all indexes even though
indexes are disabled by default.
New behavior is more straightforward:
- -blockfilterindex and -blockfilterindex=1 always enable indexes
- -noblockfilterindex and -blockfilterindex=0 always disable indexes
- -blockfilterindex="" is always an unknown value error
The meaning of these options no longer changes based on option position.
e6fcdfb822
refactor: Always enforce ALLOW_LIST in CheckArgFlags
Prevent GetArg() from being called on ALLOW_LIST arguments, and GetArgs() from
being called on non-list arguments.
This checking was previously skipped unless typed INT/BOOL/STRING flags were
present, but now it's always done.
This change has no effect on external behavior. It is just supposed to enforce
internal consistency and prevent bugs caused by using the wrong GetArg method
to retrieve settings.
util: Forbid ambiguous multiple assignments in config file
Enable error "Multiple values specified for -setting in same section of config
file.", for ALLOW_ANY settings that don't specify ALLOW_LIST.
Instead of silently ignoring settings, this change makes it an error to provide
an ambiguous config file that provides assigns multiple values to a
single-value setting. Change include release notes.
200c3cda55
test: Extend util_ArgsMerge test to check for "Multiple values specified" errors
Also skip calling TestArgString in these cases since exact behavior retrieving
values is irrelevant when parsing values fails.
Also s/TestArgString/GetArg/ to be more efficient and direct, now that it's no
longer necessary to call with separation of ALLOW_LIST and non ALLOW_LIST
cases.
6a42b8e1d4
ryanofsky force-pushed
on Aug 6, 2024
ryanofsky referenced this in commit
51e02a3bb4
on Aug 6, 2024
ryanofsky referenced this in commit
137738c91a
on Aug 6, 2024
DrahtBot removed the label
Needs rebase
on Aug 6, 2024
DrahtBot added the label
Needs rebase
on Aug 7, 2024
DrahtBot
commented at 10:12 pm on August 7, 2024:
contributor
🐙 This pull request conflicts with the target branch and needs rebase.
ryanofsky referenced this in commit
1726e01efa
on Aug 23, 2024
DrahtBot
commented at 0:36 am on November 4, 2024:
contributor
⌛ There hasn’t been much activity lately and the patch still needs rebase. What is the status here?
Is it still relevant? ➡️ Please solve the conflicts to make it ready for review and to ensure the CI passes.
Is it no longer relevant? ➡️ Please close.
Did the author lose interest or time to work on this? ➡️ Please close it and mark it ‘Up for grabs’ with the label, so that it can be picked up in the future.
This is a metadata mirror of the GitHub repository
bitcoin/bitcoin.
This site is not affiliated with GitHub.
Content is generated from a GitHub metadata backup.
generated: 2024-11-17 09:12 UTC
This site is hosted by @0xB10C More mirrored repositories can be found on mirror.b10c.me