rpc: Assert that RPCArg names are equal to CRPCCommand ones (mining,zmq,rpcdump)#19717
Merged
Conversation
added 4 commits
August 14, 2020 12:37
Contributor
|
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers. ConflictsReviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:
If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first. |
Contributor
|
Concept ACK |
promag
reviewed
Aug 17, 2020
This was referenced Aug 20, 2020
Contributor
|
tested ACK fa3d9ce Reviewed code, used help on a few RPCs, changed an RPC arg to see the failure. |
sidhujag
pushed a commit
to syscoin/syscoin
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 31, 2020
…ommand ones (mining,zmq,rpcdump) fa3d9ce rpc: Assert that RPCArg names are equal to CRPCCommand ones (rpcdump) (MarcoFalke) fa32c1d rpc: Assert that RPCArg names are equal to CRPCCommand ones (zmq) (MarcoFalke) faaa46d rpc: Assert that RPCArg names are equal to CRPCCommand ones (mining) (MarcoFalke) fa93bc1 rpc: Remove unused return type from appendCommand (MarcoFalke) Pull request description: This is split out from bitcoin#18531 to just touch the RPC methods in misc. Description from the main pr: ### Motivation RPCArg names in the rpc help are currently only used for documentation. However, in the future they could be used to teach the server the named arguments. Named arguments are currently registered by the `CRPCCommand`s and duplicate the RPCArg names from the documentation. This redundancy is fragile, and has lead to errors in the past (despite having linters to catch those kind of errors). See section "bugs found" for a list of bugs that have been found as a result of the changes here. ### Changes The changes here add an assert in the `CRPCCommand` constructor that the RPCArg names are identical to the ones in the `CRPCCommand`. ### Future work > Here or follow up, makes sense to also assert type of returned UniValue? Sure, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. I am going to submit any further works as follow-ups, including: * Removing the CRPCCommand arguments, now that they are asserted to be equal and thus redundant * Removing all python regex linters on the args, now that RPCMan can be used to generate any output, including the cli.cpp table * Auto-formatting and sanity checking the RPCExamples with RPCMan * Checking passed-in json in self-check. Removing redundant checks * Checking returned json against documentation to avoid regressions or false documentation * Compile the RPC documentation at compile-time to ensure it doesn't change at runtime and is completely static ### Bugs found * The assert identified issue bitcoin#18607 * The changes itself fixed bug bitcoin#19250 ACKs for top commit: fjahr: tested ACK fa3d9ce promag: Code review ACK fa3d9ce. Tree-SHA512: 068ade4b55cc195868d53b7f9a27151d45b440857bb069e261a49d102a49a38fdba5d68868516a1d66a54a73ba34681362f934ded7349e894042bde873b75719
Fabcien
pushed a commit
to Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 20, 2021
Summary: This is a backport of [[bitcoin/bitcoin#19717 | core#19717]] [1/4] bitcoin/bitcoin@fa93bc1 Test Plan: `ninja all check-all` Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D10145
Fabcien
pushed a commit
to Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 20, 2021
Summary: This is a backport of [[bitcoin/bitcoin#19717 | core#19717]] [2/4] bitcoin/bitcoin@faaa46d Note: the double `\n` in `rpc_generate.py` is required because of D7184 Depends on D10145 and D10149 Test Plan: `ninja all check-all` Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Subscribers: Fabien Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D10146
Fabcien
pushed a commit
to Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 20, 2021
Summary: This is a backport of [[bitcoin/bitcoin#19717 | core#19717]] [3/4] bitcoin/bitcoin@fa32c1d Depends on D10146 and D10149 Test Plan: `ninja all check-all` Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D10147
Fabcien
pushed a commit
to Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 20, 2021
Summary: This concludes backport of [[bitcoin/bitcoin#19717 | core#19717]] [4/4] bitcoin/bitcoin@fa3d9ce Depends on D10147, D10149 and D10159 Note: the forward declaration of RPC functions in rpcwallet.cpp don't seem to exist in Bitcoin ABC, and the ones in wallet_tests.cpp were in rpcdump.h (see D45) Test Plan: `ninja all check-all` Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Subscribers: Fabien Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D10148
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
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
8 participants
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.
This is split out from #18531 to just touch the RPC methods in misc. Description from the main pr:
Motivation
RPCArg names in the rpc help are currently only used for documentation. However, in the future they could be used to teach the server the named arguments. Named arguments are currently registered by the
CRPCCommands and duplicate the RPCArg names from the documentation. This redundancy is fragile, and has lead to errors in the past (despite having linters to catch those kind of errors). See section "bugs found" for a list of bugs that have been found as a result of the changes here.Changes
The changes here add an assert in the
CRPCCommandconstructor that the RPCArg names are identical to the ones in theCRPCCommand.Future work
Sure, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. I am going to submit any further works as follow-ups, including:
Bugs found