1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <aritter@gmail.com>) id 1UOpyz-0006FL-Kq
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 07 Apr 2013 13:50:09 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.128.179 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.128.179; envelope-from=aritter@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ve0-f179.google.com;
Received: from mail-ve0-f179.google.com ([209.85.128.179])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UOpyx-0000hH-2r
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 07 Apr 2013 13:50:09 +0000
Received: by mail-ve0-f179.google.com with SMTP id cz11so4645528veb.38
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 07 Apr 2013 06:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.248.11 with SMTP id me11mr13043921vcb.26.1365342601367;
Sun, 07 Apr 2013 06:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.92.138 with HTTP; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 06:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP35kFE0mkJjFWOkKMorqFg+p0BuhDpJs2Ne=MtnZwb=DA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKuKjyUFBuPMPRV6R-u0iTa=8DWMN9vqdOxnr8o8kxg9rJtVBA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgT71s0EgF055wyqcCdXmMtY-=q0pQDh9P8pRgKJcELOQg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAKuKjyWF_su0c7USd6-vzeFtJEx-YJoQZOc_zJq1U=av50CajA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP35kFE0mkJjFWOkKMorqFg+p0BuhDpJs2Ne=MtnZwb=DA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 08:50:01 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKuKjyVAR=r164mYy_g_NjgXO-DSZi7BgzsbwyksuymB43DS1A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Ritter <aritter@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(aritter[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1UOpyx-0000hH-2r
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Integration testing for BitCoin
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 13:50:09 -0000
Hey guys,
it sounds great. I read through the bitcoinj documentation and started
reading the code.
A few years ago it wasn't a full client, but now that I see that it's
almost there, it looks much more interesting :-)
Testing the reorg looks critical.
Thanks for the help everyone,
Adam
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> In bitcoinj we desperately need integration tests to exercise the wallet
> code, and I think if it was done well the tests would be applicable to
> bitcoind as well. There have been a series of bugs in bitcoinj that boiled
> down to "the unit tests were not realistic enough", either because they
> stopped simulating too early or they weren't combining multiple different
> things together in the same ways as happens on the real network. Sometimes
> timing was an issue too.
>
> Examples of what I mean - ensure that re-orgs are handled correctly and
> update the wallet properly in every case, etc.
>
> Something else that would be really useful, a standalone tool that
> stress-tests the system. If we had a tool that randomly generated chains of
> transactions we might have caught the bdb lock limit bug earlier. You could
> write such a tool using bitcoinj easily, or the raw transaction APIs on
> bitcoind.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Adam Ritter <aritter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks guys, it sounds great.
>> Testing the JSON-RPC is/was not the main goal, just an interface for
>> testing.
>> I didn't know that the bitcoinj implementation is getting close to a
>> full implementation..it sounds interesting, as it's much easier to
>> understand and work with. I'll look at the test cases.
>>
>> Thanks very much,
>> Adam
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Adam Ritter <aritter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Hey guys,
>> >>
>> >> I just bought some BitCoins after being lazy to do it for the last few
>> >> years, but also looked at the client code and the messages that are
>> >> going on this mailing list.
>> >> I saw that there are quite some unit tests, but I didn't find
>> >> integration test for BitCoin, and I believe that it's quite important
>> >> for the future of BitCoin (making the current code more stable,
>> >> testing attack scenarios, refactoring and extending code).
>> > [...]
>> >> Tests that simulate multiple bitcoin users and can verify that the
>> >> whole network of bitcoin clients work together
>> >> to achieve the goals of Bitcoin. Also maybe [System
>> >> testing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_testing)
>> >> would be a better name for the tests, but I'm not sure.
>> >
>> > I prefer to call them system tests.
>> >
>> > We use a system called blocktester that Matt Corallo wrote,
>> >
>> > https://code.google.com/r/bluemattme-bitcoinj/source/browse/core/src/test/java/com/google/bitcoin/core/FullBlockTestGenerator.java?name=fullverif&r=874c5904b12d1fcec5b556429cf208f63cd4e1bc
>> >
>> > It's based on BitcoinJ and works by simulating a peer against a
>> > slightly instrumented copy of Bitcoin(d/-qt) (modified to avoid
>> > computationally expensive mining). The tests simulates many
>> > complicated network scenarios and tests the boundaries of many
>> > (hopefully all) the particular rules of the blockchain validation
>> > protocol. We can use these tests to compare different versions of the
>> > reference software to each other and to bitcoinj (or other full node
>> > implementations) as well as comparing them to our abstract
>> > understanding of what we believe the rules of the protocol to be.
>> >
>> > These tests are run as part of the automated tests on every proposed
>> > patch to the reference software. Via a robot called pulltester which
>> > comments on github requests and produces logs like this:
>> >
>> > http://jenkins.bluematt.me/pull-tester/92a129980fb9b506da6c7f876aa8adb405c88e17/.
>> > Pulltester also performs automatic code coverage measurements.
>> >
>> > Additionally, we run a public secondary test bitcoin network called
>> > 'testnet', which can be accessed by anyone by starting the reference
>> > software with testnet=1. Testnet operates the same as the production
>> > network except it allows mining low difficulty blocks to prevent it
>> > going for long times without blocks, and some of the protective
>> > relaying rules against "non standard" transaction types are disabled.
>> >
>> > Most of this testing work has been centered around validating the
>> > blockchain behavior because thats what has serious systemic risk.
>> > Measuring the json rpc behavior is strictly less interesting, though
>> > interesting too.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Minimize network downtime and maximize team effectiveness.
>> Reduce network management and security costs.Learn how to hire
>> the most talented Cisco Certified professionals. Visit the
>> Employer Resources Portal
>> http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/employer_resources/index.html
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
|
