rpc, logging: add backgroundvalidation to getblockchaininfo #33259

polespinasa · 2025-08-26T23:02:29Z

getblockchaininfo returns verificationprogress=1 and initialblockdownload=false even if there's background validation.
This PR adds information about background validation to rpc getblockchaininfo in a similar way to validationprogress does.

If assume utxo was used the output of a "sync" node performing background validation:

$ ./build/bin/bitcoin-cli getblockchaininfo
...
  "mediantime": 1756933740,
  "verificationprogress": 1,
  "initialblockdownload": false,
  "backgroundvalidation": true,
  "background": {
    "snapshotheight": 880000,
    "blocks": 527589,
    "bestblockhash": "0000000000000000002326308420fa5ccd28a9155217f4d1896ab443d84148fa",
    "mediantime": 1529076654,
    "chainwork": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000020c92fab9e5e1d8ed2d8dbc",
    "verificationprogress": 0.2815790617966284
  },
  "chainwork": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000df97866c410b0302954919d2",
  "size_on_disk": 61198817285,

...

If assume utxo was not used the progress is hidden and background validation is set to false:

$ ./build/bin/bitcoin-cli getblockchaininfo
...
  "mediantime": 1756245700,
  "verificationprogress": 1,
  "initialblockdownload": false,
  "backgroundvalidation": false,
  "chainwork": "00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000656d6bb052b",
  "size_on_disk": 3964972194,
...

The PR also updates the way we estimate the verification progress returning a 100% on the snapshot block and not on the tip as we will stop doing background validation when reaching it.

DrahtBot · 2025-08-26T23:02:34Z

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/33259.

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

Type	Reviewers
ACK	rogersala21
Concept ACK	yuvicc, luke-jr, danielabrozzoni

If your review is incorrectly listed, please copy-paste  into the comment that the bot should ignore.

Conflicts

No conflicts as of last run.

yuvicc · 2025-08-27T05:23:45Z

Concept ACK

luke-jr

Concept ACK. Would be nice to test the active state.

polespinasa · 2025-08-27T23:12:52Z

Would be nice to test the active state.

@luke-jr what do you mean by active state?

luke-jr · 2025-08-27T23:43:08Z

When there is a background sync, not just false

Github-Pull: bitcoin#33259 Rebased-From: c1f545248ea0966a3aad0d70fc4c317cd9611d3f

ajtowns · 2025-08-28T00:56:07Z

Would it be better to return an object, eg:

{
    "background": {
        "blocks": 100000,
        "bestblockhash": "000000000003ba27aa200b1cecaad478d2b00432346c3f1f3986da1afd33e506",
        "mediantime": 1293622620,
        "chainwork": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000644cb7f5234089e"
        "verificationprogress": 0.001,
    }
    ...
}

polespinasa · 2025-08-28T02:32:31Z

@ajtowns sgtm, done.
Not sure about the order thought... I'm open to suggestions.

src/rpc/blockchain.cpp

test/functional/rpc_blockchain.py

polespinasa · 2025-08-28T21:00:37Z

2d48902999a7ad1fcf19a8e630c69d6228dbd373 added snapshot height

83a1721817fda4db88ba12e0395ed63ba064c41b modify the way verification progress is calculated for background validation -> context: #33259 (comment)

src/rpc/blockchain.cpp

src/validation.h

danielabrozzoni

Concept ACK

I did a very rough first pass and the code looks good to me. As others have said, I would like to see a functional test testing the newly introduced fields when the background validation is in progress

polespinasa · 2025-09-03T22:08:56Z

@danielabrozzoni @ajtowns @luke-jr

Tests implemented, not the cleanest way for sure, but I couldn't figure out anything simpler.
Open to suggestions :)

test/functional/feature_assumeutxo.py

polespinasa · 2025-09-15T17:23:58Z

21fb4c9 correct typos

updates estimations to the block snapshot instead of the main chain tip as it will stop validation after reaching that height

polespinasa · 2025-12-21T13:28:33Z

Rebased on top of master to solve conflicts with #30214

rogersala21

ACK ea37456

Built from source, tested, and reviewed the code. New RPC fields behave as expected.

Without loading UTXO snapshot: backgroundvalidation=false

Details


bitcoin-cli getblockchaininfo
  ...
  "mediantime": 1231006505,
  "verificationprogress": 7.692763291753853e-10,
  "initialblockdownload": true,
  "backgroundvalidation": false,
  "chainwork": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000100010001",
  "size_on_disk": 293,
  "pruned": false,
  ...

With loadtxoutset: backgroundvalidation=true and background progress shown.

Details


bitcoin-cli getblockchaininfo
  ...
  "mediantime": 1737334898,
  "verificationprogress": 0.8812817484397629,
  "initialblockdownload": true,
  "backgroundvalidation": true,
  "background": {
    "snapshotheight": 880000,
    "blocks": 34031,
    "bestblockhash": "00000000b2d3088131445fb70bda85e90663c36a66d429a2089c05014b8aac2b",
    "mediantime": 1263124911,
    "chainwork": "000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000086355a943ee0",
    "verificationprogress": 2.990124328575242e-05
  },
  "chainwork": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000a879619cfddf806d3bdf607b",
  "size_on_disk": 9569248,
  "pruned": false,
  ...

Left a few nits in comments.

rogersala21 · 2026-01-16T18:42:13Z

src/rpc/blockchain.cpp

+    auto historical_blocks{chainman.GetHistoricalBlockRange()};
+    bool background_sync = historical_blocks.has_value();
+    obj.pushKV("backgroundvalidation", background_sync);
+    if(historical_blocks) {


Nit: missing space after if → if (historical_blocks)

rogersala21 · 2026-01-16T18:44:16Z

src/rpc/blockchain.cpp

+        UniValue bValidation(UniValue::VOBJ);
+        const CBlockIndex& btip{*CHECK_NONFATAL(historical_blocks->first)};
+        const std::optional<int> bHeight{active_chainstate.SnapshotBase()->nHeight};
+        if(bHeight) bValidation.pushKV("snapshotheight", *bHeight);


Nit: missing space after if → if (bHeight)

rogersala21 · 2026-01-16T18:53:08Z

src/rpc/blockchain.cpp

+        const CBlockIndex& btip{*CHECK_NONFATAL(historical_blocks->first)};
+        const std::optional<int> bHeight{active_chainstate.SnapshotBase()->nHeight};
+        if(bHeight) bValidation.pushKV("snapshotheight", *bHeight);
+        bValidation.pushKV("blocks",btip.nHeight);


Nit: missing space after comma → bValidation.pushKV("blocks", btip.nHeight);

luke-jr reviewed Aug 27, 2025

View reviewed changes

bitcoin deleted a comment from lucifermmmenriquejr Aug 27, 2025

luke-jr pushed a commit to bitcoinknots/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Aug 28, 2025

rpc, logging: add backgroundvalidation to getblockchaininfo

732ba0e

Github-Pull: bitcoin#33259 Rebased-From: c1f545248ea0966a3aad0d70fc4c317cd9611d3f

polespinasa force-pushed the 2025-08-26-getblockchaininfo-backgroundvalidation branch 2 times, most recently from b9d3ccb to 8efdfa9 Compare August 28, 2025 02:31

ajtowns reviewed Aug 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/rpc/blockchain.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/rpc/blockchain.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/rpc/blockchain.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

test/functional/rpc_blockchain.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

polespinasa force-pushed the 2025-08-26-getblockchaininfo-backgroundvalidation branch 3 times, most recently from 17d9926 to fd504bb Compare August 28, 2025 20:57

polespinasa force-pushed the 2025-08-26-getblockchaininfo-backgroundvalidation branch 2 times, most recently from f3ee351 to 2d48902 Compare August 28, 2025 21:15

maflcko reviewed Aug 29, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/rpc/blockchain.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/validation.h Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

polespinasa force-pushed the 2025-08-26-getblockchaininfo-backgroundvalidation branch from 2d48902 to 01860ea Compare August 29, 2025 18:42

danielabrozzoni reviewed Sep 2, 2025

View reviewed changes

polespinasa force-pushed the 2025-08-26-getblockchaininfo-backgroundvalidation branch from c31014d to a48d92a Compare September 3, 2025 22:06

polespinasa requested review from ajtowns, danielabrozzoni and luke-jr September 3, 2025 22:09

BinaryIgor reviewed Sep 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

test/functional/feature_assumeutxo.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

BinaryIgor reviewed Sep 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

test/functional/feature_assumeutxo.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

polespinasa force-pushed the 2025-08-26-getblockchaininfo-backgroundvalidation branch from a48d92a to 21fb4c9 Compare September 15, 2025 17:21

DrahtBot mentioned this pull request Sep 22, 2025

log: reduce excessive "rolling back/forward" messages during block replay #33443

Merged

DrahtBot mentioned this pull request Oct 16, 2025

refactor: Improve assumeutxo state representation #30214

Merged

DrahtBot added the Needs rebase label Dec 16, 2025

kevkevinpal mentioned this pull request Dec 16, 2025

refactor: Improve assumeutxo state representation kevkevinpal/bitcoin#231

Closed

polespinasa added 3 commits December 21, 2025 13:41

log: update progress calculations for background validation

17d9606

updates estimations to the block snapshot instead of the main chain tip as it will stop validation after reaching that height

rpc, log: add backgroundvalidation to getblockchaininfo

bb0bc4d

test: add background validation test for getblockchaininfo

ea37456

polespinasa force-pushed the 2025-08-26-getblockchaininfo-backgroundvalidation branch from 21fb4c9 to ea37456 Compare December 21, 2025 13:27

DrahtBot removed the Needs rebase label Dec 21, 2025

rogersala21 reviewed Jan 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

rpc, logging: add backgroundvalidation to getblockchaininfo #33259

Are you sure you want to change the base?

rpc, logging: add backgroundvalidation to getblockchaininfo #33259

Conversation

polespinasa commented Aug 26, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented Aug 26, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Code Coverage & Benchmarks

Reviews

Conflicts

Uh oh!

yuvicc commented Aug 27, 2025

Uh oh!

luke-jr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

polespinasa commented Aug 27, 2025

Uh oh!

luke-jr commented Aug 27, 2025

Uh oh!

ajtowns commented Aug 28, 2025

Uh oh!

polespinasa commented Aug 28, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

polespinasa commented Aug 28, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

danielabrozzoni left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

polespinasa commented Sep 3, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

polespinasa commented Sep 15, 2025

Uh oh!

polespinasa commented Dec 21, 2025

Uh oh!

rogersala21 left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rogersala21 Jan 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rogersala21 Jan 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rogersala21 Jan 16, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

9 participants

polespinasa commented Aug 26, 2025 •

edited

Loading

DrahtBot commented Aug 26, 2025 •

edited

Loading

polespinasa commented Aug 28, 2025 •

edited

Loading

rogersala21 left a comment •

edited

Loading

rogersala21 Jan 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading