This adds coverage to the ActivateSnapshot function asserting that when we try to use a snapshot with too little work done on it, using loadtxoutset. That this log and rpc error are thrown
log
[snapshot] activation failed - work does not exceed active chainstate
[snapshot] activation failed - population failed
rpc error
Unable to load UTXO snapshot
Adds coverage to this code https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L5659
<!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
<!--006a51241073e994b41acfe9ec718e94-->
For detailed information about the code coverage, see the test coverage report.
<!--021abf342d371248e50ceaed478a90ca-->
See the guideline for information on the review process.
If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.
<!--174a7506f384e20aa4161008e828411d-->
Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:
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.
<!--85328a0da195eb286784d51f73fa0af9-->
🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. Make sure to run all tests locally, according to the documentation.
Possibly this is due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest commit of the target branch.
Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.
<sub>Debug: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/runs/24977593545</sub>
236 | @@ -237,6 +237,9 @@ def run_test(self): 237 | # will allow us to test n1's sync-to-tip on top of a snapshot. 238 | self.generate(n0, nblocks=100, sync_fun=self.no_op) 239 | 240 | + with n0.assert_debug_log(expected_msgs=["[snapshot] activation failed - work does not exceed active chainstate","[snapshot] activation failed - population failed"]):
Made a temporary modification of a word in the expected message (of feature_assumeutxo.py to test that a mismatch would be caught (it was, as expected). Restored to original expected message then modified the message in validation.cpp. This mismatch was also detected (as expected)l.
The default timeout for assert_debug_log() is 2 seconds. I haven't had a chance to dig deeper yet, but are we confident there isn't a potential timing issue with the message arriving into the debug log later than 2 seconds? (e.g. a late arrival potentially causing an intermittent test failure). I haven't encountered this, but only ran the tests a few times.
Thanks for the review!
I think the timeout should be fine there is even a comment pointing out that we check the work twice because we want to fail fast https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L5655-L5657
236 | @@ -237,6 +237,9 @@ def run_test(self): 237 | # will allow us to test n1's sync-to-tip on top of a snapshot. 238 | self.generate(n0, nblocks=100, sync_fun=self.no_op) 239 | 240 | + with n0.assert_debug_log(expected_msgs=["[snapshot] activation failed - work does not exceed active chainstate","[snapshot] activation failed - population failed"]): 241 | + assert_raises_rpc_error(-32603, "Unable to load UTXO snapshot", n0.loadtxoutset, dump_output['path'])
Also made a temporary modification to this expected message. Mismatch was caught (as expected).
@kevkevinpal We are loading the snapshot of n0 in n0 itslelf? Should it not be loaded into n1?
Thank you for the review!
yes, we should be able to remove that TODO: (removed in ac1b0e3)
I used n0 instead of n1 because if we use n1 it will properly work because n1 is not synced up yet. So I used n0 to loadtxoutset of a chainstate which is certain to be older than its current chainstate
I see, though it seemed unusual initially that we are loading a snapshot in the same node. But now that I think more about it - this can happen in a real world scenario as well, right? Eg: When the node is re-started after a long time and needs to catch up to the latest blocks.
Concept ACK
Thanks. It's great to add test coverage. Left a question.
Make successful, all functional tests also. Asked a question and provided a suggestion. @kevkevinpal Should we get rid of this TODO on line 26 now? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/test/functional/feature_assumeutxo.py#L26
Signed-off-by: kevkevinpal <oapallikunnel@gmail.com>
<!--85328a0da195eb286784d51f73fa0af9-->
🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. Make sure to run all tests locally, according to the documentation.
Possibly this is due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest commit of the target branch.
Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.
<sub>Debug: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/runs/25050589884</sub>
Just realised this is similar to this PR: #29428
Oh nice I didnt see this, closing this now