Instead of passing the datadir and chain name to os.path.join, just use
the existing properties, which are the same.
-BEGIN VERIFY SCRIPT-
sed -i --regexp-extended 's|\.datadir, self\.chain, .wallets.|.wallets_path|g' $(git grep -l '\.datadir, self\.chain,')
sed -i --regexp-extended 's|\.datadir, self\.chain,|.chain_path,|g' $(git grep -l '\.datadir, self\.chain,')
-END VERIFY SCRIPT-
The work queue exceeded test in interface_rpc.py would repeatedly call
an RPC until the error was achieved. However hitting this error is
dependent on the processing speed of the computer and the optimization
level of the binary. Configurations that result in slower processing
would result in the RPC used being processed before the error could be
hit, resulting the test's runtime having a high variance.
Switching the RPC to waitfornewblock allows it to run in a much more
consistent time that is still fairly fast. waitfornewblock forces
the RPC server to allocate a thread and wait, occupying a spot in the
work queue. This is perfect for this test because the slower the RPC,
the more likely we will achieve the race condition necessary to pass the
test. Using a timeout of 500 ms appears to work reliably without causing
the test to take too long.
The previous diff touched most files in ./test/, so bump the headers to
avoid having to touch them again for a bump later.
-BEGIN VERIFY SCRIPT-
./contrib/devtools/copyright_header.py update ./test/
-END VERIFY SCRIPT-
8dd5946c0b add functional test (Larry Ruane)
b5a80fa7e4 util: Handle HTTP_SERVICE_UNAVAILABLE in bitcoin-cli (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
If `bitcoind` is processing 16 RPC requests, attempting to submit another request using `bitcoin-cli` produces this less-than-helpful error message: `error: couldn't parse reply from server`. This PR changes the error to: `error: server response: Work queue depth exceeded`.
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
tACK 8dd5946c0b
luke-jr:
utACK 8dd5946c0b (no changes since previous utACK)
hebasto:
re-ACK 8dd5946c0b, only suggested changes since my [previous](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18335#pullrequestreview-460621350) review.
darosior:
ACK 8dd5946c0b
Tree-SHA512: 33e25f6ff05d9b56fae2bdb68b132557bb8e995f5438ac4fbbc53c304c5152a98aa43c43600c31d8a6a2830cbd48bf8ec7d89dce50190b29ec00a43830126913
1abcecc40c Tests: Use self.chain instead of 'regtest' in almost all current tests (Jorge Timón)
Pull request description:
Simply avoiding the hardcoded string in more places for consistency.
It can also allow for more easily reusing tests for other chains other than regtest.
Separated from #8994 .
Continues #16509 .
It is still not complete (ie to be complete, we need the -chain parameter in #16680 and make whether acceptnonstdtxs is allowed for that chain or not customizable for regtest [or for custom chains like in #8994 ] ). But while being incomplete like #16509 , it's quite simple to review and another step forward IMO.
ACKs for top commit:
Sjors:
re-ACK 1abcecc. I think it's an improvement even if incomplete and if some PR's might accidentally bring "regtest" back. Subsequent improvements hopefully don't have to touch 16 files.
elichai:
Code review ACK 1abcecc40c
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 1abcecc40c.
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 1abcecc40c
Tree-SHA512: 5620de6dab235ca8bd8670d6366c7b9f04f0e3ca9c5e7f87765b38e16ed80c17d7d1630c0d5fd7c5526f070830d94dc74cc2096d8ede87dc7180ed20569509ee
This adds explicit tests for the returned HTTP status codes to
interface_rpc.py (for error cases) and the HTTP JSON-RPC client in
general for success.
PR 15381 brought up discussion about the HTTP status codes in general,
and the general opinion was that the current choice may not be ideal
but should not be changed to preserve compatibility with existing
JSON-RPC clients. Thus it makes sense to actually test the current
status to ensure this desired compatibility is not broken accidentally.
This adds a new regtest file 'interface_rpc.py', containing a test for
batch JSON-RPC requests. Those were previously not tested at all. Tests
for basic requests are not really necessary, as those are used anyway
in lots of other regtests.
The existing interface_http.py file is more about the underlying HTTP
connection, so adding a new interface file for the JSON-RPC specific
things makes sense.
MarcoFalke