Skip to content

Conversation

@kallewoof
Copy link
Contributor

@kallewoof kallewoof commented Aug 17, 2020

Addresses feedback from jonatack and meshcollider in #14582.

@kallewoof kallewoof force-pushed the 20200817-maxapsfee-followup branch from 053af46 to 920006f Compare August 17, 2020 05:47
Copy link
Member

@jonatack jonatack left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Concept ACK! Do you plan to add @meshcollider's suggestion in #14582 (comment)?

@kallewoof kallewoof force-pushed the 20200817-maxapsfee-followup branch from 920006f to e6547aa Compare August 17, 2020 07:52
@kallewoof
Copy link
Contributor Author

kallewoof commented Aug 17, 2020

@jonatack Thanks for review! Added a test to check the cap is not exceeded. [Edited: Will → Did]

@kallewoof kallewoof force-pushed the 20200817-maxapsfee-followup branch from e6547aa to 452befa Compare August 17, 2020 08:12
@kallewoof
Copy link
Contributor Author

@kallewoof kallewoof force-pushed the 20200817-maxapsfee-followup branch from 452befa to 198c443 Compare August 17, 2020 10:04
@fjahr
Copy link
Contributor

fjahr commented Aug 17, 2020

Code review ACK 198c4434a2870c67e9b1b7b39800c10ec0404fb5

Edit: not sure about the CI failures, tests succeed for me locally.

Copy link
Member

@jonatack jonatack left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ACK 198c4434a28

Copy link
Member

@jonatack jonatack Aug 17, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Verified the tests all pass if -maxapsfee=0.00002719, and that they fail at this line if -maxapsfee=0.00002720 (8240 - 5520 = 2720):

AssertionError: [node 3] Expected messages "['Fee non-grouped = 5520, grouped = 8240, using non-grouped']"

Actual log

Fee non-grouped = 5520, grouped = 8240, using grouped

So if you want to test the limit, could set maxapsfee to 0.00002719.

@kallewoof
Copy link
Contributor Author

kallewoof commented Aug 18, 2020

This should fix; if waiting for this to be merge-ready is undesired, #19756 was opened.

@kallewoof kallewoof force-pushed the 20200817-maxapsfee-followup branch from e077f8c to 36cfd7f Compare August 18, 2020 05:30
maflcko pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 18, 2020
…ups test

72ae20f tests: add sync_all to fix race condition in wallet groups test (Karl-Johan Alm)

Pull request description:

  This most likely fixes #19749, the intermittent CI issues with wallet_groups.

  This fix is also included in #19743.

Top commit has no ACKs.

Tree-SHA512: dd6ef7f89829483e2278191c21fe0912b51fd2187c10a0fa158339c5ab9f22d93b733ae10f17ef25d8b64f44e596e66dba8d7db5c009343472f422ce4cd67d8f
@kallewoof kallewoof force-pushed the 20200817-maxapsfee-followup branch from 36cfd7f to 19cf0d3 Compare August 18, 2020 06:31
@jonatack
Copy link
Member

ACK 19cf0d3 per git range-diff e6e277f9 198c443 19cf0d3 provided the CI agrees; the test passes for me locally

@kallewoof
Copy link
Contributor Author

Weirdly, it's now giving a different message.

AssertionError: [node 3] Expected messages "['Fee non-grouped = 2820, grouped = 4160, using grouped']" does not partially match log:
[...]
2020-08-18T07:17:37.634268Z [httpworker.1] [default wallet] Fee non-grouped = 2820, grouped = 2820, using grouped

@meshcollider
Copy link
Contributor

I get the same error locally ^

@kallewoof
Copy link
Contributor Author

Rebase screw-up. Fixing.

@kallewoof kallewoof force-pushed the 20200817-maxapsfee-followup branch from 19cf0d3 to b740b76 Compare August 18, 2020 08:12
@jonatack
Copy link
Member

ACK 19cf0d3 per git range-diff e6e277f9 198c443 19cf0d3 provided the CI agrees; the test passes for me locally

I think I mistakenly ran the test while still on commit 198c443. Re-reviewing.

tx5 = self.nodes[3].getrawtransaction(txid5, True)
# tx5 should have 3 inputs (1.0, 1.0, 1.0) and 2 outputs
assert_equal(3, len(tx5["vin"]))
assert_equal(2, len(tx4["vout"]))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should this be tx5?

Suggested change
assert_equal(2, len(tx4["vout"]))
assert_equal(2, len(tx5["vout"]))

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It should! Gah thanks.

Copy link
Contributor

@meshcollider meshcollider left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

functional test run ACK b740b76 modulo jon's comment (i.e. passes with his suggested change)

Btw Kalle, we edit out the '@' symbol tags in the OP because they get added to the merge commit and it spams users every time any other fork of the repo cherry-picks the PR :)

@jonatack
Copy link
Member

jonatack commented Aug 18, 2020

@kallewoof further to #19743 (comment), here is a proposed additional test commit if you feel like pulling it in:

https://github.com/jonatack/bitcoin/commits/maxapsfee-tests

Co-authored-by: Jon Atack <jon@atack.com>
Co-authored-by: Samuel Dobson <dobsonsa68@gmail.com>
@kallewoof kallewoof force-pushed the 20200817-maxapsfee-followup branch from b740b76 to 7e31ea9 Compare August 18, 2020 10:25
@kallewoof
Copy link
Contributor Author

Squashed @jonatack's improvements (including tx4 → tx5 typo) into main commit (already co-authored-by tagged).

@jonatack
Copy link
Member

ACK 7e31ea9

(if Travis acks too)

Copy link
Contributor

@meshcollider meshcollider left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

re-ACK 7e31ea9

Test passes locally but I'll wait for Travis

@meshcollider meshcollider merged commit a2a250c into bitcoin:master Aug 18, 2020
sidhujag pushed a commit to syscoin/syscoin that referenced this pull request Aug 18, 2020
…let groups test

72ae20f tests: add sync_all to fix race condition in wallet groups test (Karl-Johan Alm)

Pull request description:

  This most likely fixes bitcoin#19749, the intermittent CI issues with wallet_groups.

  This fix is also included in bitcoin#19743.

Top commit has no ACKs.

Tree-SHA512: dd6ef7f89829483e2278191c21fe0912b51fd2187c10a0fa158339c5ab9f22d93b733ae10f17ef25d8b64f44e596e66dba8d7db5c009343472f422ce4cd67d8f
deadalnix pushed a commit to Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc that referenced this pull request Sep 14, 2021
Summary:
Co-authored-by: Jon Atack <jon@atack.com>
Co-authored-by: Samuel Dobson <dobsonsa68@gmail.com>

This is a backport of [[bitcoin/bitcoin#19743 | core#19743]]

Notes:
 - the Release notes are not relevant because they refer to a PR that we backported almost one year ago.
 - the formula for computing a defaulti fee in Bitcoin ABC is `1 sat/byte * tx_size`, with `tx_size  ~ 148 * n_in + 33 * n_out + 10`. The tx sizes in the log messages checked in this PR are consistent with this formula (and different from the way Core computes the fees).

Test Plan: `ninja all check-all`

Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien

Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien

Subscribers: Fabien

Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D10094
@bitcoin bitcoin locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 15, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants