Skip to content

Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#27549: fuzz: addrman, add coverage for network field in Select(), Size() and GetAddr() #468

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
DashCoreAutoGuix wants to merge 3 commits into
base: backport-0.26-batch-438
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#27549: fuzz: addrman, add coverage for network field in Select(), Size() and GetAddr() #468

DashCoreAutoGuix wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

@DashCoreAutoGuix
Copy link
Owner

@DashCoreAutoGuix DashCoreAutoGuix commented Jul 27, 2025

Backports bitcoin#27549

Original commit: ee467b8

Backported from Bitcoin Core v0.26

@kwvg
chore: resolve logical conflict between dash#6691 and dash#6775
0b8fe88 
dash#6775 updates UniValue, which changed the syntax for fetching
integers, which created a divergence of expected behavior from dash#6691
@coderabbitai
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Jul 27, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Warning

Rate limit exceeded

@PastaPastaPasta has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 26 minutes and 32 seconds before requesting another review.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout.

Please see our FAQ for further information.

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 94f0caa and 8bb8cfd.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • src/test/fuzz/addrman.cpp (1 hunks)
  • src/test/llmq_commitment_tests.cpp (1 hunks)
✨ Finishing Touches
  • 📝 Generate Docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment
  • Commit unit tests in branch backport-0.26-batch-438-pr-27549

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Explain this complex logic.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai explain this code block.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and explain its main purpose.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Support

Need help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate sequence diagram to generate a sequence diagram of the changes in this PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate unit tests to generate unit tests for this PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@DashCoreAutoGuix
Copy link
Owner Author

DashCoreAutoGuix commented Jul 27, 2025

✅ Backport Verification - Issues Fixed

I found and fixed 1 issue:

  • CI build failures across all platforms: Fixed UniValue API calls from get_int() to getInt() in llmq_commitment_tests.cpp

Original Bitcoin commit: ee467b8238
Fix commit pushed: 53bb7a7e0a
Reviewed commit hash: d20e2f9b0e-verify-1753633817

The build failures were caused by outdated UniValue API method calls. The fix updates the API calls to match Dash's UniValue implementation and should resolve all CI build issues.

@DashCoreAutoGuix DashCoreAutoGuix added the fixes-applied Issues found and fixes automatically applied label Jul 27, 2025
@DashCoreAutoGuix
Copy link
Owner Author

DashCoreAutoGuix commented Jul 27, 2025

✅ Backport Verification - Issues Fixed

I found and fixed 1 issue:

  • CI Build Failures: Fixed UniValue API calls in llmq_commitment_tests.cpp to use template syntax (getInt<int>() instead of getInt())

Original Bitcoin commit: ee467b8238
Fix commit pushed: 6319688ba2
Reviewed commit hash: 53bb7a7e0a-verify-1753643850

Analysis Summary

  • ✅ Bitcoin commit only modifies src/test/fuzz/addrman.cpp for fuzz testing coverage
  • ✅ Size ratio: 142.9% (within acceptable 80-150% range)
  • ✅ No witness/segwit code detected
  • ✅ File operations validated
  • 🔧 Fixed: CI failures across all platforms due to incorrect UniValue API usage

Issues Addressed

  • Build Failures: Updated getInt() calls to getInt<int>() to match new UniValue template API
  • Extra File: The llmq_commitment_tests.cpp changes were necessary Dash-specific fixes for UniValue compatibility

The backport now faithfully implements Bitcoin's addrman fuzz testing improvements while maintaining compatibility with Dash's codebase.

@DashCoreAutoGuix
Copy link
Owner Author

DashCoreAutoGuix commented Jul 27, 2025

✅ Backport Verification Successful

No issues found! This backport is complete and faithful to the original Bitcoin change.

Analysis Summary

CI Analysis

The single CI failure (feature_asset_locks.py) is unrelated to this PR:

  • Our PR only touches fuzzing tests (src/test/fuzz/addrman.cpp) and UniValue API
  • Other test suites pass successfully (linux64_nowallet-test)
  • The asset locks test failure is a known flaky test unrelated to addrman changes

Validation Results

✅ No witness/segwit code - Clean
✅ File operations valid - Minor extra file for Dash compatibility
✅ Size ratio acceptable - 142.9% (14→20 lines)
✅ Bitcoin intent preserved - Faithful backport with proper adaptations

This PR is ready for merge. ✅

@DashCoreAutoGuix DashCoreAutoGuix added the verified Backport verification passed - ready for merge label Jul 27, 2025
@kwvg
Merge dashpay#6783: fix: resolve logical conflict between dash#6691 a…
3b3169d 
…nd dash#6775, compile error

0b8fe88 chore: resolve logical conflict between dash#6691 and dash#6775 (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)

Pull request description:

  ## Additional Information

  [dash#6691](dashpay#6691) and [dash#6775](dashpay#6775) were merged into `develop` in that order, neither conflicting with the other. [dash#6775](dashpay#6775) updated the UniValue subtree before it was unsubtree'd and subsequent improvements were backported. To enable this, a syntax change was required which replaced `get_int()` with `getInt<int>()`, which, the code introduced in [dash#6691](dashpay#6691) didn't use as it was merged _before_ [dash#6775](dashpay#6775).

  As it was new code, this was not registered as a merge conflict but this logical conflict caused `develop` to fail ([build](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/actions/runs/16546102266)). This pull request remedies that issue.

  ## Breaking Changes

  None expected

  ## Checklist

  - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
  - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas **(note: N/A)**
  - [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
  - [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation **(note: N/A)**
  - [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_

ACKs for top commit:
  UdjinM6:
    utACK 0b8fe88
  knst:
    utACK 0b8fe88

Tree-SHA512: 7af4599e38bca5d776766cd8a2acda46d046f5dfe9f9c45586ac1f27fc709bd6ac913709b2c24d133ab57bbf2a6d5cb0630d0e874f62a472e173d61ced2face0
@achow101 @PastaPastaPasta
Merge bitcoin#27549: fuzz: addrman, add coverage for network field …
8bb8cfd 
…in `Select()`, `Size()` and `GetAddr()`

35a2175 fuzz: addrman, add coverage for `network` field in `Select()`, `Size()` and `GetAddr()` (brunoerg)

Pull request description:

  This PR adds fuzz coverage for `network` field in `Select()`, `Size()` and `GetAddr()`, there was only call to them without passing a network.
  https://marcofalke.github.io/b-c-cov/fuzz.coverage/src/addrman.cpp.gcov.html

ACKs for top commit:
  amitiuttarwar:
    for the record, ACK 35a2175 - only small changes from the version (previously) proposed in 27213
  achow101:
    ACK 35a2175
  mzumsande:
    Code Review ACK 35a2175, haven't tested this yet, but I will let the fuzzer run for a while now.

Tree-SHA512: dddb8322298d6c373c8e68d57538470b11825a9a310a355828c351d5c0b19ff6779d024a800e3ea90126d0c050e86f71fd22cd23d1a306c784cef0f82c45e3ca
@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta force-pushed the backport-0.26-batch-438-pr-27549 branch from 6319688 to 8bb8cfd Compare July 29, 2025 00:26
@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta removed the verified Backport verification passed - ready for merge label Dec 3, 2025
@DashCoreAutoGuix
Copy link
Owner Author

DashCoreAutoGuix commented Dec 3, 2025

✅ Verification Complete - APPROVED

Bitcoin Commit

Verification Results

✅ CI Status: All 51 checks passed
✅ Backport Faithfulness: Faithful adaptation of Bitcoin commit
✅ Size Ratio: 142.9% (within acceptable range)
✅ Previously Applied Fixes: Correctly resolves logical conflict with dash#6775

Analysis

The main backport commit faithfully adapts bitcoin#27549, adding fuzz coverage for the network field parameter in several AddrMan methods.

The additional fix commit (0b8fe88f5c) is a legitimate resolution of a logical conflict:

Conclusion

This PR is a faithful backport with appropriate fixes applied. All checks pass and the code is ready to merge.

Automated verification by Claude Code

@DashCoreAutoGuix DashCoreAutoGuix added the verified Backport verification passed - ready for merge label Dec 3, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

fixes-applied Issues found and fixes automatically applied verified Backport verification passed - ready for merge

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@DashCoreAutoGuix @PastaPastaPasta @kwvg @achow101