Add script tests for FindAndDelete in pre-segwit and segwit scripts #8927
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
Contributor
|
utACK acf853d |
Member
|
Looks good to me, utACK acf853d |
laanwj
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 19, 2016
…wit scripts acf853d Add script tests for FindAndDelete in pre-segwit and segwit scripts (Johnson Lau)
Contributor
|
tACK with NBitcoin, thanks, this is tricky test to create |
luke-jr
pushed a commit
to luke-jr/bitcoin
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 2, 2016
Github-Pull: bitcoin#8927 Rebased-From: acf853d
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
5 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 adds
FindAndDeletetests for pre-segwit and segwit scripts, to show thatFindAndDeleteis performed only in pre-segwit scripts. The transaction is generated in an unconventional way: the public key is generated with key recovery, using a fixed signature (committed in prevout) and a known sighash.Also edited the comments in interpreter.cpp since the rationale of dropping the signature was wrong.
No harm to backport but I don't feel this is needed. This is more important for alt-implementations to make sure they won't fork accidentally by incorrectly implementing BIP143.