test: run mempool_spend_coinbase.py even with wallet disabled #20385

1. 
   mjdietzx commented at 10:57 pm on November 13, 2020: contributor

   Run the mempool spend coinbase test even when the wallet was not compiled, as proposed in #20078.
2. fanquake added the label Tests on Nov 13, 2020
3. in test/functional/mempool_spend_coinbase.py:38 in ca75db9c66 outdated

   40+        # too immature to spend.
   41         b = [self.nodes[0].getblockhash(n) for n in range(101, 103)]
   42         coinbase_txids = [self.nodes[0].getblock(h)['tx'][0] for h in b]
   43-        spends_raw = [create_raw_transaction(self.nodes[0], txid, node0_address, amount=49.99) for txid in coinbase_txids]
   44+        utxo_101 = next(filter(lambda utxo: coinbase_txids[0] == utxo['txid'], wallet._utxos))
   45+        utxo_102 = next(filter(lambda utxo: coinbase_txids[1] == utxo['txid'], wallet._utxos))
   

   ---

   ---

   

   MarcoFalke commented at 8:47 am on November 14, 2020:

   _utxos is a private member, so you can’t read it directly. It needs to be accessed via a getter method that also marks the utxo as spent (pops it)

   ---

   

   mjdietzx commented at 3:41 pm on November 14, 2020:

   Good point. What do you think of this approach? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20385/commits/650ba88013ff0fb8cf08b00d5e7c674cf5b16a22
4. in test/functional/mempool_spend_coinbase.py:45 in ca75db9c66 outdated

   49 
   50         # coinbase at height 102 should be too immature to spend
   51-        assert_raises_rpc_error(-26,"bad-txns-premature-spend-of-coinbase", self.nodes[0].sendrawtransaction, spends_raw[1])
   52+        assert_raises_rpc_error(-26,
   53+                                "bad-txns-premature-spend-of-coinbase",
   54+                                lambda utxo: wallet.send_self_transfer(from_node=self.nodes[0], utxo_to_spend=utxo),
   

   ---

   ---

   

   MarcoFalke commented at 8:48 am on November 14, 2020:

   0                                lambda: wallet.send_self_transfer(from_node=self.nodes[0], utxo_to_spend=utxo_102),
   

5. MarcoFalke approved
6. 
   MarcoFalke commented at 8:48 am on November 14, 2020: member

   Approach ACK
7. 
   promag commented at 11:08 am on November 14, 2020: member

   Concept ACK.
8. in test/functional/test_framework/wallet.py:43 in 650ba88013 outdated

   39@@ -40,9 +40,20 @@ def generate(self, num_blocks):
   40             self._utxos.append({'txid': cb_tx['txid'], 'vout': 0, 'value': cb_tx['vout'][0]['value']})
   41         return blocks
   42 
   43-    def get_utxo(self):
   44-        """Return the last utxo. Can be used to get the change output immediately after a send_self_transfer"""
   45-        return self._utxos.pop()
   46+    def get_utxo(self, txid=''):
   

   ---

   ---

   

   MarcoFalke commented at 5:55 pm on November 15, 2020:

   0    def get_utxo(self, *, txid=''):
   

   please force named arguments for this

   ---

   

   mjdietzx commented at 6:22 pm on November 15, 2020:

   done
9. MarcoFalke approved
10. 
    MarcoFalke commented at 5:55 pm on November 15, 2020: member

    ACK. Could squash and rebase
11. mjdietzx force-pushed on Nov 15, 2020
12. 
    MarcoFalke commented at 7:18 am on November 16, 2020: member

    Please squash your commits according to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#squashing-commits
13. test: run mempool_spend_coinbase.py even with wallet disabled 21f2433601
14. mjdietzx force-pushed on Nov 16, 2020
15. 
    mjdietzx commented at 3:58 pm on November 16, 2020: contributor

    I squashed the commits as requested. Going forward with these MiniWallet test “refactors”, should I continue to make one PR per test file rewrite, or should I batch multiple test file rewrites in each PR?
16. 
    laanwj commented at 3:39 pm on November 19, 2020: member

    ACK 21f24336019d438e225c7bd6653871119883a4ee
17. laanwj merged this on Nov 19, 2020
18. laanwj closed this on Nov 19, 2020

    ---

19. 
    MarcoFalke commented at 3:47 pm on November 19, 2020: member

    should I continue to make one PR per test file rewrite, or should I batch multiple test file rewrites in each PR?

    Whatever makes more sense to you

20. sidhujag referenced this in commit a705f27e5e on Nov 19, 2020
21. mjdietzx deleted the branch on Nov 19, 2020
22. deadalnix referenced this in commit 452c543ebc on Jan 11, 2022
23. DrahtBot locked this on Feb 15, 2022

Contributors
mjdietzx MarcoFalke promag laanwj

Labels
Tests