test,bench: validate CheckTransaction's duplicate input detection in broader context
#31699
Conversation
|
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers. Code Coverage & BenchmarksFor details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/31699. ReviewsSee the guideline for information on the review process. ConflictsNo conflicts as of last run. |
308ac17 to
176c441
Compare
|
🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. HintsTry to run the tests locally, according to the documentation. However, a CI failure may still
Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure. |
176c441 to
9a142ac
Compare
9a142ac to
e5147ed
Compare
The `CheckTransaction` validation function in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/consensus/tx_check.cpp#L41-L45 relies on a correct ordering relation for detecting duplicate transaction inputs. This update to the tests ensures that: * Accurate detection of duplicates: Beyond trivial cases (e.g., two identical inputs), duplicates are detected correctly in more complex scenarios. * Consistency across methods: Both sorted sets and hash-based sets behave identically when detecting duplicates for `COutPoint` and related values. * Robust ordering and equality relations: The function maintains expected behavior for ordering and equality checks. Using randomized testing with shuffled inputs, the enhanced test validates that `CheckTransaction` remains robust and reliable across various input configurations. It confirms identical behavior to a hashing-based duplicate detection mechanism, ensuring consistency and correctness.
The newly introduced `ProcessTransactionBench` incorporates multiple steps in the validation pipeline, offering a more comprehensive view of `CheckBlock` performance within a realistic transaction validation context. Previous microbenchmarks, such as DeserializeAndCheckBlockTest and DuplicateInputs, focused on isolated aspects of transaction and block validation. While these tests provided valuable insights for targeted profiling, they lacked context regarding the broader validation process, where interactions between components play a critical role.
e5147ed to
d90a0b8
Compare
|
🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. HintsTry to run the tests locally, according to the documentation. However, a CI failure may still
Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure. |
This PR follows up on #31682, isolating its testing and benchmarking improvements to focus on
CheckTransaction's duplicate input detection and performance in realistic contexts, avoiding the controversial consensus code change.First commit adds tests to validate
CheckTransaction's ordering-based duplicate detection against the hash-based methods used elsewhere in the codebase.Second commit replaces overly-specific microbenchmarks with
ProcessTransactionBench, which implicitly measuresCheckTransactionas part of the full validation pipeline.