test: fix test_limit_enforcement_package #34001

1. 
   instagibbs commented at 6:00 pm on December 3, 2025: member

   The current test has a couple issues:

   1. the parent_tx_good is regenerating the exact same transaction that is already in the cluster, so it’s resulting in no replacements on submission
   2. once fixed, the additional fee needs to be allocated to the parent transaction in the package, not the child. If the RBF fees are allocated to the child, this triggers the package RBF logic, which requires no in-mempool ancestors to be present.

   Fix the bug and add a few assertions to protect against regressions.

2. test: fix test_limit_enforcement_package

   The current test has a couple issues:
   
   1) the parent_tx_good is regenerating the exact same
   transaction that is already in the cluster, so it's
   resulting in no replacements on submission
   2) once fixed, the additional fee needs to be allocated to
   the parent transaction in the package, not the child. If the
   RBF fees are allocated to the child, this triggers the
   package RBF logic, which requires no in-mempool ancestors to
   be present.
   
   Fix the bug and add a few assertions to protect against
   regressions.

   0a8d303d66
3. DrahtBot added the label Tests on Dec 3, 2025
4. 
   DrahtBot commented at 6:00 pm on December 3, 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/34001.

   Reviews

   See the guideline for information on the review process.

   Type	Reviewers
   ACK	bensig, achow101, sipa

   If your review is incorrectly listed, please copy-paste <!–meta-tag:bot-skip–> into the comment that the bot should ignore.

   LLM Linter (✨ experimental)

   Possible typos and grammar issues:

   • its meant -> it’s meant [missing apostrophe; “its” (possessive) should be “it’s” (it is) to mean “as it is meant to replace”]

   2025-12-03

5. 
   instagibbs commented at 6:03 pm on December 3, 2025: member

   cc @sdaftuar @glozow
6. fanquake added this to the milestone 31.0 on Dec 17, 2025
7. 
   bensig commented at 6:48 pm on January 6, 2026: contributor

   ACK 0a8d303d667cc10a68fd15d799039b9ae26c3315
8. fanquake requested review from glozow on Feb 13, 2026
9. 
   achow101 commented at 11:40 pm on February 23, 2026: member

   ACK 0a8d303d667cc10a68fd15d799039b9ae26c3315
10. sedited requested review from sipa on Feb 25, 2026
11. in test/functional/mempool_cluster.py:151 in 0a8d303d66

    149+        # This should work because the effect is {max_cluster_count} + 2 - 2 = {max_cluster_count}
    150         third_to_last_utxo = cluster_submitted[-3]["new_utxo"]
    151-        parent_tx_good = self.wallet.create_self_transfer(utxo_to_spend=third_to_last_utxo)
    152-        child_tx_good = self.wallet.create_self_transfer(utxo_to_spend=parent_tx_good["new_utxo"], fee=fee_to_beat * 5)
    153+        # Tweak locktime to not recreate same tx as its meant to replace, fee needs to be even higher
    154+        parent_tx_good = self.wallet.create_self_transfer(utxo_to_spend=third_to_last_utxo, locktime=1, fee=fee_to_beat * 10)
    

    ---

    ---

    

    instagibbs commented at 3:46 pm on February 25, 2026:

    I do realize now that technically, increasing the fee should be enough to make sure txid isn’t the same. Still think it’s nice to be very clear.
12. 
    sipa commented at 3:32 pm on February 26, 2026: member

    ACK 0a8d303d667cc10a68fd15d799039b9ae26c3315
13. fanquake merged this on Feb 26, 2026
14. fanquake closed this on Feb 26, 2026

    ---

Contributors
instagibbs DrahtBot bensig achow101 sipa

Review Requested
glozow

Labels
Tests

Milestone
31.0