test: Rename wallet in restore attempt in wallet_assumeutxo #34377

1. 
   fjahr commented at 11:31 pm on January 21, 2026: contributor

   I hope this fixes #34354

   Based on this error from the logs filesystem error: cannot remove: The process cannot access the file because it is being used by another process it looks like there still exists a wallet file by the same name from the previous test case hasn’t been cleaned up yet by it’s process fully. This should be fixed by giving the failing restorewallet case a different wallet name and this shouldn’t have any further effects on the rest of the test because is expected to fail anyway. The following (successful) call already uses a different wallet name.

2. test: Rename wallet name in restore attempt in wallet_assumeutxo

   This prevents potential intermittend failures on windows when the wallet by the same name from the previous test case hasn't been cleaned up yet by it's process.

   e1dc4afeeb
3. fjahr marked this as ready for review on Jan 21, 2026
4. DrahtBot added the label Tests on Jan 21, 2026
5. 
   DrahtBot commented at 11:31 pm on January 21, 2026: 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/34377.

   Reviews

   See the guideline for information on the review process.

   Type	Reviewers
   ACK	achow101, w0xlt, rkrux

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

6. 
   achow101 commented at 11:48 pm on January 21, 2026: member

   ACK e1dc4afeeb6b3da4b7d9b0ca31ab21dda0a84478
7. 
   w0xlt commented at 1:08 am on January 22, 2026: contributor

   ACK e1dc4afeeb6b3da4b7d9b0ca31ab21dda0a84478
8. fjahr renamed this:
   test: Rename wallet name in restore attempt in wallet_assumeutxo
   test: Rename wallet in restore attempt in wallet_assumeutxo
   on Jan 22, 2026
9. 
   rkrux commented at 9:02 am on January 22, 2026: contributor

   ACK e1dc4afeeb6b3da4b7d9b0ca31ab21dda0a84478

   Looks fine to me. I can see the previous test test_backup_during_background_sync_pruned_node tried to restore from the backup backup_w2.dat to a wallet with the same name w2 in node 3 here. The same name could indeed be* the cause of the flakiness. Moreover, there’s no harm in using a different wallet name for restoration. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/5715748333fe41414ce72c3dcdd3420a8e6ec470/test/functional/wallet_assumeutxo.py#L87-L88

   Unrelated slightly: I don’t understand that how can node3 access the backup file that was created by node0 here. After a single glance of the test, I could not find any file copying happening anywhere. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/5715748333fe41414ce72c3dcdd3420a8e6ec470/test/functional/wallet_assumeutxo.py#L133-L136

10. 
    fjahr commented at 9:17 am on January 22, 2026: contributor

    Unrelated slightly: I don’t understand that how can node3 access the backup file that was created by node0 here. After a single glance of the test, I could not find any file copying happening anywhere.

    I didn’t go through the code to verify the details again but my understanding is that the file paths by default resolve to the working directory which is shared by all the nodes in a test. If the backup should go into one of the nodes datadirs then that path would need to be given as an absolute path.

11. sedited merged this on Jan 22, 2026
12. sedited closed this on Jan 22, 2026

    ---

Contributors
fjahr DrahtBot achow101 w0xlt rkrux

Labels
Tests