test: pass `datacarriersize` option for tests using large outputs (instead of `acceptnonstdtxn`) #25503

pull theStack wants to merge 3 commits into bitcoin:master from theStack:202206-test-replace_acceptnonstdxn_with_datacarriersize_option changing 4 files +8 −17

theStack commented at 4:14 PM on June 29, 2022: member

By specifying the datacarriersize option instead of the more generic acceptnonstdtxn for functional tests, we can be more specific about what part of the transaction is non-standard and can be sure that all other aspects follow the standard policy. Transactions with more than one OP_RETURN output are never considered standard, i.e. we have to change the gen_return_txouts helper to create only a single output in order to get rid of the acceptnonstdxtn option. Note that on master there is currently no test using the datacarriersize parameter, so this PR indirectly also increases the test coverage.

The change affects the tests mempool_limit.py, mining_prioritisetransaction.py (call gen_return_txouts directly) and feature_maxuploadtarget.py (calls gen_return_txouts indirectly via the mine_large_block(...) helper).

test: assert serialized txouts size of `gen_return_txouts` helper

This assures that changing the internals of the helper function
still leads to the expected outcome sizewise (preparation for the
next commit).

f319287d81

test: let `gen_return_txouts` create a single large OP_RETURN output

Transactions with more than one datacarrier (OP_RETURN) output
are never considered standard, i.e. this change is necessary in
order to to get rid of the `acceptnonstdtxn` option for some
tests.

b1ba3ed155

test: pass `datacarriersize` option for tests using large outputs (instead of `acceptnonstdtxn`)

By specifying the `datacarriersize` option instead of the more
generic `acceptnonstdtxn`, we can be more specific about what
part of the transaction is non-standard and can be sure that all
other aspects follow the standard policy.

475aae846e

fanquake added the label Tests on Jun 29, 2022
MarcoFalke commented at 4:27 PM on June 29, 2022: member

Would it work to use witness programs of length 40 and then add a separate test fro datacarriersize?
MarcoFalke approved
theStack commented at 4:46 PM on June 29, 2022: member

Would it work to use witness programs of length 40 and then add a separate test fro datacarriersize?

Interesting idea, didn't even consider that. I think that would work, the only drawback is possibly that tests could slow down due to the quite high number of outputs (>1400 for reaching the same txouts serialized size in gen_return_txouts (vs. 128 on master and 1 on this PR), almost 20k outputs in a block generated by mine_large_block) and the need to add them all to the UTXO set. Will try out the next days if that's a viable way.
MarcoFalke commented at 6:58 PM on June 29, 2022: member

yeah, your way might actually be preferable or at least a good first step.
MarcoFalke merged this on Jun 30, 2022
MarcoFalke closed this on Jun 30, 2022
theStack deleted the branch on Jun 30, 2022
sidhujag referenced this in commit 7f6df24925 on Jun 30, 2022
DrahtBot locked this on Jun 30, 2023

Contributors

theStack

MarcoFalke

Labels

Tests