test: add option to skip large re-org test in feature_block #33003

1. 
   brunoerg commented at 1:57 pm on July 17, 2025: contributor

   Fixes #32877

   This PR adds a config flag --skipreorg which is used to skip the large re-org test. According to corecheck, feature_block is our slowest functional test and primarily because of this large re-org test. However, this test might not be useful for the mutation analysis of some files and could be skipped to save a huge amount of time.

   0time ./build/test/functional/feature_block.py --skipreorg
   1./build/test/functional/feature_block.py --skipreorg  11.38s user 0.33s system 37% cpu 31.422 total
   2time ./build/test/functional/feature_block.py
   3./build/test/functional/feature_block.py  25.87s user 3.53s system 56% cpu 52.317 total
   

2. brunoerg marked this as ready for review on Jul 17, 2025
3. in test/functional/feature_block.py:1335 in c8db1bb6ed outdated

   1368         self.send_blocks([b_v1], success=False, force_send=True, reject_reason='bad-version(0x00000001)', reconnect=True)
   1369 
   1370-        self.move_tip(chain1_tip + 2)
   1371+        if not self.options.skip_reorg:
   1372+            self.move_tip(chain1_tip + 2)
   1373+        else:
   

   ---

   ---

   

   maflcko commented at 2:35 pm on July 17, 2025:

   i wonder if the small test cases can be run before the reorg, to avoid having to branch on the move_tip

   ---

   

   brunoerg commented at 7:20 pm on July 17, 2025:

   Yes, it’s possible. I just addressed it.
4. 
   DrahtBot commented at 2:35 pm on July 17, 2025: contributor

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

   Code Coverage & Benchmarks

   For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/33003.

   Reviews

   See the guideline for information on the review process.

   Type	Reviewers
   ACK	maflcko, enirox001

   If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.

   Conflicts

   Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

   • #10102 (Multiprocess bitcoin by ryanofsky)

   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.

5. maflcko added the label Tests on Jul 17, 2025
6. test: add option to skip large re-org test in feature_block 8810642b57
7. brunoerg force-pushed on Jul 17, 2025
8. 
   brunoerg commented at 7:20 pm on July 17, 2025: contributor

   Force-pushed addressing #33003 (review)
9. 
   maflcko commented at 8:41 am on July 18, 2025: member

   review ACK 8810642b571e1d8482375e962a1129b691d5d226 🥁

   Signature:

   0untrusted comment: signature from minisign secret key on empty file; verify via: minisign -Vm "${path_to_any_empty_file}" -P RWTRmVTMeKV5noAMqVlsMugDDCyyTSbA3Re5AkUrhvLVln0tSaFWglOw -x "${path_to_this_whole_four_line_signature_blob}"
   1RUTRmVTMeKV5npGrKx1nqXCw5zeVHdtdYURB/KlyA/LMFgpNCs+SkW9a8N95d+U4AP1RJMi+krxU1A3Yux4bpwZNLvVBKy0wLgM=
   2trusted comment: review ACK 8810642b571e1d8482375e962a1129b691d5d226 🥁
   3DpyLlo3oKv/19B8tyRDZvdShApH95O1ZOgFaYz2g8sYDmOkLXTmdio0voYe7Sj7BJ1uLuGQwSnEQdU/9TxjwBQ==
   

10. 
    fanquake commented at 9:57 am on July 26, 2025: member

    Looking at corecheck, there are currently 3 other functional tests that run slower than feature_block.py (p2p_segwit.py, p2p_opportunistic_1p1c.py & mining_getblocktemplate_longpoll.py). p2p_opportunistic_1p1c.py should be better after #33048.
11. 
    brunoerg commented at 9:22 pm on July 26, 2025: contributor

    Looking at corecheck, there are currently 3 other functional tests that run slower than feature_block.py (p2p_segwit.py, p2p_opportunistic_1p1c.py & mining_getblocktemplate_longpoll.py). p2p_opportunistic_1p1c.py should be better after #33048.

    Sure, I’m taking a look at these other ones as well. I’m addressing feature_block for now because it’s used a lot on the mutation analysis.

12. 
    enirox001 commented at 2:22 pm on July 28, 2025: contributor

    tACK 8810642 – Ran tests with/without –skipreorg; saw ~40 % speedup; no regressions.
13. 
    luke-jr commented at 4:56 am on July 29, 2025: member

    Seems like it would be better to split it into two, so the quicker part can be run by test_runner every time (without running it twice when the long reorg test is also desired)

Contributors
brunoerg maflcko DrahtBot fanquake enirox001 luke-jr

Labels
Tests