test: Add more thorough test for dbwrapper iterators #7956
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
I made a silly mistake in a database wrapper where keys were sorted by char instead of uint8_t. As x86 char is signed the sorting for the block index database was messed up, resulting in a segfault due to missing records. Add a test to catch: - Wrong sorting - Seeking errors - Iteration result not complete
|
utACK 6030625 |
|
I think this needs another check: that shorter keys get sorted before longer keys if they're otherwise the same. I don't think that we use variable-length keys anywhere, at least not within the same key prefix, but it's good to have the sorting be well-defined as lexicographic. |
This was referenced Apr 28, 2016
|
Closing in favor of #7992 |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I made a silly mistake in an experimental database wrapper where keys were sorted by char instead of uint8_t. As x86 char is signed the sorting (and thus seeking) for the block index database was messed up, resulting in a segfault due to missing records. This should be caught by the tests.
Add a test to catch:
Also add an assertion to CBlockIndex::GetAncestor, as this it the place it will segfault when block index records are missing. An assertion error is easier to diagnose than a pointer crash (although what we really need is a start-up check whether the database is complete otherwise suggest a reindex).