Merge #16471: [mempool] log correct messages when CPFP fails

42a5e91 [mempool] log correct messages when CPFP fails (John Newbery)

Pull request description:

  Fixes a logging issue introduced in #15681

ACKs for top commit:
  laanwj:
    ACK 42a5e91 (+utACK from bluematt that isn't registered because it has no commit id)

Tree-SHA512: ff5f423cc4d22838eea00c5b1d39ceda89cd61474c72f256a97c698eb0ec3f2156a97139f537669376132902c1e3943bf84c356a4b98a9a306b4ec57302c2761

Author: laanwj

src/validation.cpp

@@ -618,6 +618,8 @@ static bool AcceptToMemoryPoolWorker(const CChainParams& chainparams, CTxMemPool
         std::string errString;
         if (!pool.CalculateMemPoolAncestors(entry, setAncestors, nLimitAncestors, nLimitAncestorSize, nLimitDescendants, nLimitDescendantSize, errString)) {
             setAncestors.clear();
+            // If CalculateMemPoolAncestors fails second time, we want the original error string.
+            std::string dummy_err_string;
             // If the new transaction is relatively small (up to 40k weight)
             // and has at most one ancestor (ie ancestor limit of 2, including
             // the new transaction), allow it if its parent has exactly the
@@ -629,7 +631,7 @@ static bool AcceptToMemoryPoolWorker(const CChainParams& chainparams, CTxMemPool
             // outputs - one for each counterparty. For more info on the uses for
             // this, see https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-November/016518.html
             if (nSize >  EXTRA_DESCENDANT_TX_SIZE_LIMIT ||
-                    !pool.CalculateMemPoolAncestors(entry, setAncestors, 2, nLimitAncestorSize, nLimitDescendants + 1, nLimitDescendantSize + EXTRA_DESCENDANT_TX_SIZE_LIMIT, errString)) {
+                    !pool.CalculateMemPoolAncestors(entry, setAncestors, 2, nLimitAncestorSize, nLimitDescendants + 1, nLimitDescendantSize + EXTRA_DESCENDANT_TX_SIZE_LIMIT, dummy_err_string)) {
                 return state.Invalid(ValidationInvalidReason::TX_MEMPOOL_POLICY, false, REJECT_NONSTANDARD, "too-long-mempool-chain", errString);
             }
         }

test/functional/mempool_package_onemore.py

@@ -66,14 +66,14 @@ def run_test(self):
         assert_equal(len(self.nodes[0].getrawmempool(True)), MAX_ANCESTORS + 1)
 
         # Adding one more transaction on to the chain should fail.
-        assert_raises_rpc_error(-26, "too-long-mempool-chain", self.chain_transaction, self.nodes[0], [txid], [0], value, fee, 1)
+        assert_raises_rpc_error(-26, "too-long-mempool-chain, too many unconfirmed ancestors [limit: 25]", self.chain_transaction, self.nodes[0], [txid], [0], value, fee, 1)
         # ...even if it chains on from some point in the middle of the chain.
-        assert_raises_rpc_error(-26, "too-long-mempool-chain", self.chain_transaction, self.nodes[0], [chain[2][0]], [1], chain[2][1], fee, 1)
-        assert_raises_rpc_error(-26, "too-long-mempool-chain", self.chain_transaction, self.nodes[0], [chain[1][0]], [1], chain[1][1], fee, 1)
+        assert_raises_rpc_error(-26, "too-long-mempool-chain, too many descendants", self.chain_transaction, self.nodes[0], [chain[2][0]], [1], chain[2][1], fee, 1)
+        assert_raises_rpc_error(-26, "too-long-mempool-chain, too many descendants", self.chain_transaction, self.nodes[0], [chain[1][0]], [1], chain[1][1], fee, 1)
         # ...even if it chains on to two parent transactions with one in the chain.
-        assert_raises_rpc_error(-26, "too-long-mempool-chain", self.chain_transaction, self.nodes[0], [chain[0][0], second_chain], [1, 0], chain[0][1] + second_chain_value, fee, 1)
+        assert_raises_rpc_error(-26, "too-long-mempool-chain, too many descendants", self.chain_transaction, self.nodes[0], [chain[0][0], second_chain], [1, 0], chain[0][1] + second_chain_value, fee, 1)
         # ...especially if its > 40k weight
-        assert_raises_rpc_error(-26, "too-long-mempool-chain", self.chain_transaction, self.nodes[0], [chain[0][0]], [1], chain[0][1], fee, 350)
+        assert_raises_rpc_error(-26, "too-long-mempool-chain, too many descendants", self.chain_transaction, self.nodes[0], [chain[0][0]], [1], chain[0][1], fee, 350)
         # But not if it chains directly off the first transaction
         self.chain_transaction(self.nodes[0], [chain[0][0]], [1], chain[0][1], fee, 1)
         # and the second chain should work just fine