test: coin selection hardening #36301

pull knorrium wants to merge 4 commits into bitcoin:master from knorrium:coinselection_hardening changing 4 files +164 −0

knorrium commented at 11:52 PM on September 19, 2026: none

I was approved for an OpenSats grant and identified coverage gaps in a few areas while doing focused code analysis.

Using Kimi K3, I added a fuzzer that identified a potential crash which is now fixed and has added unit tests, along with the fuzzer itself.
Add fuzzer for coin selection f5d24f9e7c
Fix crash identified by the fuzzer d730a4cc2b
Add unit test for the coin selection fix 2933a13a52
DrahtBot added the label Tests on Sep 19, 2026
DrahtBot commented at 11:52 PM on September 19, 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/36301.



Reviews

See the guideline and AI policy for information on the review process. A summary of reviews will appear here.
Fix local CI errors 91576b02f1
knorrium marked this as a draft on Sep 20, 2026
knorrium marked this as ready for review on Sep 20, 2026
knorrium commented at 7:00 AM on September 20, 2026: none

All tests are passing on my fork
in src/test/fuzz/CMakeLists.txt:33 in f5d24f9e7c
```
  29 | @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ add_executable(fuzz
  30 |    cmpctblock.cpp
  31 |    coins_view.cpp
  32 |    coinscache_sim.cpp
  33 | +  coinselection.cpp
```
yancyribbens commented at 11:32 AM on September 20, 2026:

How is this different than the coinselection fuzz tests on wallet? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/bb5296576e8f1a9fc11c19d9a25ba02ed4547e24/src/wallet/test/fuzz/CMakeLists.txt#L8

Why add these tests as not part of the wallet fuzz tests?
sedited commented at 2:10 PM on September 20, 2026: contributor

This pull request needs rework and can't be merged as is. Does the added fuzz test introduce any new coverage? You need to explain in your own words why you implemented the change and what it seeks to achieve. Is the gap you identified here externally reachable? As far as I can tell it does not add coverage, nor addresses a condition that is externally reachable, so I'm closing this again.

I would suggest familiarizing yourself with our contribution workflow and starting out with reviewing pull requests before contributing these kind of changes.
sedited closed this on Sep 20, 2026

Contributors

Labels

test: coin selection hardening #36301

Code Coverage & Benchmarks

Reviews