ProcessGetData starts by eagerly processing getdata requests. In this loop, a special case checks for peers that have not requested transaction announcements (ie blocksonly) and ignores those requests. This test prevents regressions for that special case, which is currently not covered by existing tests.
test: Add missing test case for getdata requests from blocks-only peers #35553
pull roqqit wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from roqqit:blocksonly-getdata-test changing 1 files +11 −1-
roqqit commented at 8:54 PM on June 17, 2026: none
-
test: Add missing test case for getdata requests from blocks-only peers 278710a88d
- DrahtBot added the label Tests on Jun 17, 2026
-
DrahtBot commented at 8:54 PM on June 17, 2026: contributor
<!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
<!--006a51241073e994b41acfe9ec718e94-->
Code Coverage & Benchmarks
For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/35553.
<!--021abf342d371248e50ceaed478a90ca-->
Reviews
See the guideline for information on the review process. A summary of reviews will appear here.
<!--5faf32d7da4f0f540f40219e4f7537a3-->
-
pinheadmz commented at 8:57 PM on June 17, 2026: member
Can you explain a bit more about what you're doing with this test? How did you discover the problem? Did you try any other approaches first? Is there an open issue related to the patch? What exact code path was missing from coverage?
Please try to make reviewer work easier by providing more context.
-
roqqit commented at 4:05 AM on June 18, 2026: none
I have updated the PR description to make it more clear.
-
maflcko commented at 4:53 AM on June 18, 2026: member
The burden to show the missing (and gained) coverage is on the pull author. You'll have to produce a mutation showing this.
