Skip to content
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.

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

[tests] Add basic coverage reporting for RPC tests #6804

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Nov 12, 2015

Conversation

jamesob
Copy link
Member

@jamesob jamesob commented Oct 11, 2015

After the missed-unobfuscation snafu of #6777, I realized that we don't have comprehensive coverage of the RPC commands, nor do we have a method of determining which RPC calls are or aren't covered. I'd like to start writing more RPC tests, but first I'd like to have an easy way of figuring out which tests to write.

In this PR I've provided a basic method of getting a binary coverage report for each RPC command, which should be useful to guide adding tests until we have full coverage of the RPC interface. After we're exercising every RPC command, we can possibly gate builds on that full-coverage invariant using a mechanism like this, if that's preferable.

The report looks as follows:

 $ ./qa/pull-tester/rpc-tests.py --coverage

Initialized coverage directory at /tmp/coverageAHqCbm
Running testscript wallet.py...
Initializing test directory /tmp/testSAwNV3

[ tests run... ]

Tests successful
Uncovered RPC commands:
  - dumpprivkey
  - estimatefee
  - estimatepriority
  - getaccount
  - getaddednodeinfo
  - getaddressesbyaccount
  - getblockchaininfo
  - getblockheader
  - getblocktemplate
  - getconnectioncount
  - getdifficulty
  - getgenerate
  - getinfo
  - getmempoolinfo
  - getmininginfo
  - getnettotals
  - getnetworkhashps
  - getrawchangeaddress
  - getreceivedbyaccount
  - getreceivedbyaddress
  - gettxout
  - gettxoutsetinfo
  - getunconfirmedbalance
  - importprivkey
  - keypoolrefill
  - listaccounts
  - listaddressgroupings
  - listlockunspent
  - listreceivedbyaccount
  - listreceivedbyaddress
  - listsinceblock
  - lockunspent
  - move
  - ping
  - prioritisetransaction
  - setaccount
  - setgenerate
  - signmessage
  - submitblock
  - verifychain
  - verifymessage

Cleaning up coverage data

@MarcoFalke
Copy link
Member

MarcoFalke commented Oct 12, 2015

Is it required to have the coverage tempdir? Couldn't this be done in memory without disk io?

@jamesob
Copy link
Member Author

jamesob commented Oct 12, 2015

@MarcoFalke I can't see how that would work given that we call the individual test scripts in separate subprocesses, but agree that would be preferable if possible.

@jamesob jamesob force-pushed the rpc_coverage branch 3 times, most recently from d75e1be to 91ca8d1 Compare Oct 12, 2015
@jamesob
Copy link
Member Author

jamesob commented Oct 12, 2015

Yargh... build failure due to #6778. Going to try rerunning.

@laanwj
Copy link
Member

laanwj commented Oct 13, 2015

Concept ACK, although there seems to be overlap (at least in purpose) with #6813

@jamesob
Copy link
Member Author

jamesob commented Oct 22, 2015

Merge conflict resolved here.

@jamesob
Copy link
Member Author

jamesob commented Oct 22, 2015

Rebased (thanks again @MarcoFalke).

@jamesob
Copy link
Member Author

jamesob commented Nov 2, 2015

@laanwj @dexX7 how are you two feeling about this PR? I still think it'd be useful, but if you have reservations I'm happy to close it out for now.

@dexX7
Copy link
Contributor

dexX7 commented Nov 3, 2015

I personally have no preference to be honest. I think it could be handy, if new users dive into Bitcoin Core and start with adding additional tests, and I also like the cleanup and documentation. Then again, it's unclear, whether users really are going to use it. Mini-ACK from my side.

@jamesob
Copy link
Member Author

jamesob commented Nov 3, 2015

@dexX7 yeah, apologies for conflating some of the cleanup & doc with this feature. Would this PR be more useful if we enabled it by default for travis builds?

@dexX7
Copy link
Contributor

dexX7 commented Nov 3, 2015

That's a very interesting idea!

@jamesob
Copy link
Member Author

jamesob commented Nov 3, 2015

The Travis build now reports coverage by default:

selection_041

@dexX7
Copy link
Contributor

dexX7 commented Nov 3, 2015

That's pretty cool imho: https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bitcoin/jobs/89011588#L3943

edit: you beat me, hehe. :)

@@ -67,7 +67,18 @@ def EncodeDecimal(o):
class AuthServiceProxy(object):
Copy link
Member

@laanwj laanwj Nov 3, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Instead of changing authproxy, I'd prefer if this was an object that wrapped an authproxy, and logs and passes on all the calls. I think it could be done that way

Copy link
Member Author

@jamesob jamesob Nov 5, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good suggestion. I've started working on the implementation of this, and I think it's going to simplify things a bit.

@laanwj
Copy link
Member

laanwj commented Nov 3, 2015

The overview of untested RPC commands is confronting. We should definitely have it.

@MarcoFalke
Copy link
Member

MarcoFalke commented Nov 3, 2015

Nit: Would it be hard to unfiddle into two commits?

  • Cleanup
  • New feature

Regardless of that: Concept ACK, I think we could make it fail as soon as all commands are covered.

@jamesob
Copy link
Member Author

jamesob commented Nov 5, 2015

@MarcoFalke, going forward I'll certainly be more diligent about separating cleanup changes from new functionality -- unfortunately I think in this case it'll be tough to tease out the distinction between cleanup and coverage here, as there isn't a clean way to do it in terms of git chunks, so I'd have to basically rewrite the PR with that separation in mind. This is test code, and so the commit separability doesn't seem to me to be as important as in other parts of the system (though I understand in general this is what we should aim for). That said, if you think it's important I'd be happy to try.

@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ class AuthServiceProxy(object):

def __init__(self, service_url, service_name=None, timeout=HTTP_TIMEOUT, connection=None):
self.__service_url = service_url
self.__service_name = service_name
self._service_name = service_name
Copy link
Member Author

@jamesob jamesob Nov 5, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@laanwj note here that unfortunately I wasn't able to completely avoid changing authproxy.py: in order to use composition over inheritance in coverage.AuthServiceProxyWrapper (which I think is preferable), we have to make this attribute un-name-mangled, i.e. accessible outside of the class itself.

@jamesob
Copy link
Member Author

jamesob commented Nov 5, 2015

Aside from any further feedback, I'm happy with where this is.

@jamesob
Copy link
Member Author

jamesob commented Nov 9, 2015

Ping here -- any further feedback?

from authproxy import AuthServiceProxy, JSONRPCException
from util import *
Copy link
Member

@MarcoFalke MarcoFalke Nov 9, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nit: is the required? (Makes diff larger)

Copy link
Member

@laanwj laanwj Nov 11, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In principle I agree with getting rid of cases of import *, but what I'd propose is to explicitly import the symbols that are used:

from util import initialize_chain, start_nodes, # etc

Using the full name explicitly in every use is a) more typing b) generates a large diff (as @MarcoFalke already says)

Copy link
Contributor

@jgarzik jgarzik Nov 11, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Indeed; explicitly importing symbols reduces namespace pollution and slightly reduces chances for odd bugs.

Copy link
Member Author

@jamesob jamesob Nov 11, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I can file a cleanup PR afterwards doing this more broadly; would you guys prefer I (i) revert this diff here, (ii) import the symbols explicitly instead of the util namespace, or (iii) leave as-is for now?

Copy link
Member

@laanwj laanwj Nov 11, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd prefer (ii), but if you want to revert this and do it in another PR it's fine with me too. I don't like (iii) because it implies changing this now and changing this (partially) back again later.

Copy link
Member Author

@jamesob jamesob Nov 11, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍 I'll do (ii) sometime tonight.

Copy link
Member Author

@jamesob jamesob Nov 11, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

FWIW I'd argue that the existing method of importing the util namespace rather than particular symbols results in less pollution, but this is a small thing.

@MarcoFalke
Copy link
Member

MarcoFalke commented Nov 9, 2015

utACK 37f4481

@laanwj
Copy link
Member

laanwj commented Nov 11, 2015

ACK after squashing into one commit

@MarcoFalke
Copy link
Member

MarcoFalke commented Nov 11, 2015

reACK b5cbd39

@jamesob
Copy link
Member Author

jamesob commented Nov 12, 2015

Squashed.

@laanwj laanwj merged commit b5cbd39 into bitcoin:master Nov 12, 2015
laanwj added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 12, 2015
b5cbd39 Add basic coverage reporting for RPC tests (James O'Beirne)
zkbot added a commit to zcash/zcash that referenced this pull request Mar 24, 2020
Backport RPC test harness PRs

Cherry-picked from the following upstream PRs:
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6548
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6804
  - Just the coverage backend, not the flag to enable it.
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7744
- bitcoin/bitcoin#9832
  - Excludes `wallet-hd.py` change (missing bitcoin/bitcoin#8309).

Part of #2074.
zkbot added a commit to zcash/zcash that referenced this pull request Mar 24, 2020
Backport RPC test harness PRs

Cherry-picked from the following upstream PRs:
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6548
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6804
  - Just the coverage backend, not the flag to enable it.
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7744
- bitcoin/bitcoin#9832
  - Excludes `wallet-hd.py` change (missing bitcoin/bitcoin#8309).

Part of #2074.
zkbot added a commit to zcash/zcash that referenced this pull request Apr 2, 2020
Backport RPC test harness PRs

Cherry-picked from the following upstream PRs:
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6548
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6804
  - Just the coverage backend, not the flag to enable it for all RPC tests.
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7744
- bitcoin/bitcoin#9832
  - Excludes `wallet-hd.py` change (missing bitcoin/bitcoin#8309).

Part of #2074.
zkbot added a commit to zcash/zcash that referenced this pull request Apr 3, 2020
Backport RPC test harness PRs

Cherry-picked from the following upstream PRs:
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6548
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6804
  - Just the coverage backend, not the flag to enable it for all RPC tests.
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7744
- bitcoin/bitcoin#9832
  - Excludes `wallet-hd.py` change (missing bitcoin/bitcoin#8309).

Part of #2074.
zkbot added a commit to zcash/zcash that referenced this pull request Nov 21, 2020
Migrate rpc-tests.sh to all-python rpc-tests.py

Cherry-picked from the following upstream PRs:
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6567
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6523
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6616
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6788
  - Only the commit fixing `rpc-tests.py`
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6791
  - Only the fix to `qa/rpc-tests/README.md`
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6827
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6930
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6804
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7029
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7028
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7027
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7135
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7209
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7635
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7778
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7851
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7814
  - Only the changes to the new .py files in this PR.
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7971
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7972
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8056
  - Only the first commit.
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8098
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8104
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8133
  - Only the `rpc-tests.py` commit.
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8066
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8216
  - Only the last two commits.
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8254
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8400
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8482
  - Excluding the first commit (only affects RPC tests we don't have).
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8551
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8607
  - Only the pull-tester commit, for conflict removal.
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8625
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8713
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8750
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8789
- bitcoin/bitcoin#9098
- bitcoin/bitcoin#9276
  - Excluding the second commit (we don't have the changes it requires).
- bitcoin/bitcoin#9657
- bitcoin/bitcoin#9807
- bitcoin/bitcoin#9766
- bitcoin/bitcoin#9823
zkbot added a commit to zcash/zcash that referenced this pull request Dec 2, 2020
Backport migration from rpc-tests.sh to rpc-tests.py

Cherry-picked from the following upstream PRs:
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6567
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6523
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6616
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6788
  - Only the commit fixing `rpc-tests.py`
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6791
  - Only the fix to `qa/rpc-tests/README.md`
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6827
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6930
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6804
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7029
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7028
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7027
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7135
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7209
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7635
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7778
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7851
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7814
  - Only the changes to the new .py files in this PR.
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7971
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7972
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8056
  - Only the first commit.
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8098
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8104
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8133
  - Only the `rpc-tests.py` commit.
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8066
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8216
  - Only the last two commits.
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8254
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8400
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8482
  - Excluding the first commit (only affects RPC tests we don't have).
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8551
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8607
  - Only the pull-tester commit, for conflict removal.
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8625
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8713
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8750
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8789
- bitcoin/bitcoin#9098
- bitcoin/bitcoin#9276
  - Excluding the second commit (we don't have the changes it requires).
- bitcoin/bitcoin#9657
- bitcoin/bitcoin#9807
- bitcoin/bitcoin#9766
- bitcoin/bitcoin#9823
zkbot added a commit to zcash/zcash that referenced this pull request Dec 2, 2020
Backport migration from rpc-tests.sh to rpc-tests.py

Cherry-picked from the following upstream PRs:
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6567
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6523
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6616
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6788
  - Only the commit fixing `rpc-tests.py`
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6791
  - Only the fix to `qa/rpc-tests/README.md`
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6827
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6930
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6804
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7029
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7028
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7027
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7135
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7209
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7635
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7778
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7851
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7814
  - Only the changes to the new .py files in this PR.
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7971
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7972
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8056
  - Only the first commit.
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8098
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8104
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8133
  - Only the `rpc-tests.py` commit.
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8066
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8216
  - Only the last two commits.
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8254
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8400
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8482
  - Excluding the first commit (only affects RPC tests we don't have).
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8551
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8607
  - Only the pull-tester commit, for conflict removal.
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8625
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8713
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8750
- bitcoin/bitcoin#8789
- bitcoin/bitcoin#9098
- bitcoin/bitcoin#9276
  - Excluding the second commit (we don't have the changes it requires).
- bitcoin/bitcoin#9657
- bitcoin/bitcoin#9807
- bitcoin/bitcoin#9766
- bitcoin/bitcoin#9823
@bitcoin bitcoin locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 8, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants