test: feature_blockfilterindex_prune.py improvements #21297

pull jonatack wants to merge 2 commits into bitcoin:master from jonatack:feature_blockfilterindex_prune-improvements changing 1 files +30 −21

jonatack commented at 10:28 PM on February 24, 2021: member
- improves the assertions
- removes an unneeded node, reducing from two to one, and some unneeded extra_arg code
fanquake added the label Tests on Feb 24, 2021
in test/functional/feature_blockfilterindex_prune.py:21 in 764ac927d1 outdated
```
  17 | @@ -18,32 +18,41 @@ def set_test_params(self):
  18 |      def run_test(self):
  19 |          # test basic pruning compatibility & filter access of pruned blocks
  20 |          self.log.info("check if we can access a blockfilter when pruning is enabled but no blocks are actually pruned")
  21 | -        assert len(self.nodes[1].getblockfilter(self.nodes[1].getbestblockhash())['filter']) > 0
  22 | +        self.sync_all()
```
MarcoFalke commented at 7:01 AM on February 25, 2021:

sync_all syncs the mempool and blocks, but not the blockfilter. You'll need self.wait_until(lambda: self.nodes[1].getindexinfo() == {'basic block filter index': {'synced': True, 'best_block_height': 200}}). Either in this line or by modifying sync_all.

jonatack commented at 10:19 AM on February 25, 2021:

Thanks! I hadn't seen #21252 that fixes the issue.
DrahtBot commented at 8:36 AM on February 25, 2021: member



The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.



Conflicts

No conflicts as of last run.
jonatack closed this on Feb 25, 2021
MarcoFalke commented at 1:33 PM on February 25, 2021: member

Happy to ACK after a rebase, if still relevant
test: improve assertions in feature_blockfilterindex_prune.py ace3f4cbdf
jonatack reopened this on Feb 25, 2021
jonatack force-pushed on Feb 25, 2021
jonatack marked this as ready for review on Feb 25, 2021
jonatack commented at 2:23 PM on February 25, 2021: member

Thanks -- rebased, updated, and now removes an unneeded node to use one instead of two.
jonatack renamed this:
~~test: `feature_blockfilterindex_prune.py` improvements~~
test: feature_blockfilterindex_prune.py improvements
on Feb 25, 2021

in test/functional/feature_blockfilterindex_prune.py:46 in 3c3e0617cb outdated

  53 | +
  54 |          self.log.info("start node without blockfilterindex")
  55 | -        self.stop_node(1)
  56 | -        self.start_node(1, extra_args=self.extra_args[0])
  57 | +        self.stop_node(0)
  58 | +        self.start_node(0, extra_args=["-fastprune", "-prune=1"])

MarcoFalke commented at 4:11 PM on February 25, 2021:

        self.restart_node(0, extra_args=["-fastprune", "-prune=1"])

might be possible to write shorter

jonatack commented at 5:08 PM on February 25, 2021:

nice! done

MarcoFalke approved
MarcoFalke commented at 4:14 PM on February 25, 2021: member

I presume the first node was used as "network node" to serve the blockchain, though nothing is done with the chain, so seems fine to remove it
test: remove unneeded node from feature_blockfilterindex_prune.py 88c4b9b761
jonatack force-pushed on Feb 25, 2021
MarcoFalke commented at 5:09 PM on February 25, 2021: member

ACK 88c4b9b761964d0b3011126796f272cfca2a9fa2
jonatack commented at 5:09 PM on February 25, 2021: member

Updated per feedback to git diff 3c3e061 88c4b9b (thanks!)
brunoerg approved
brunoerg commented at 11:57 AM on February 27, 2021: member
Tested ACK 88c4b9b761964d0b3011126796f272cfca2a9fa2
- Run it on MacOS 11.1
- Code looks great for me
MarcoFalke merged this on Feb 27, 2021
MarcoFalke closed this on Feb 27, 2021
jonatack deleted the branch on Feb 27, 2021
sidhujag referenced this in commit 8c51d2738d on Feb 27, 2021
Fabcien referenced this in commit eacbda7591 on Apr 5, 2022
DrahtBot locked this on Aug 16, 2022

Contributors

Labels

test: feature_blockfilterindex_prune.py improvements #21297

Conflicts