You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
3c3548a validation: clarify final |= BLOCK_FAILED_VALID in InvalidateBlock (Matt Corallo)
aac5488 validation: correctly update BlockStatus for invalid block descendants (stratospher)
9e29653 test: check BlockStatus when InvalidateBlock is used (stratospher)
c996675 validation: fix traversal condition to mark BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD (stratospher)
Pull request description:
This PR addresses 3 issues related to how `BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD` is set:
1. In `InvalidateBlock()`
- Previously, `BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD` was not being set when it should have been.
- This was due to an incorrect traversal condition, which is fixed in this PR.
2. In `SetBlockFailure()`
- `BLOCK_FAILED_VALID` is now cleared before setting `BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD`.
3. In `InvalidateBlock()`
- if block is already marked as `BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD`, don't mark it as `BLOCK_FAILED_VALID` again.
Also adds a unit test to check `BLOCK_FAILED_VALID` and `BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD` status in `InvalidateBlock()`.
<details>
<summary><h3>looking for feedback on an alternate approach</h3></summary>
<br>
An alternate approach could be removing `BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD` since even though we have a distinction between
`BLOCK_FAILED_VALID` and `BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD` in the codebase, we don't use it for anything. Whenever we check for BlockStatus, we use `BLOCK_FAILED_MASK` which encompasses both of them. See similar discussion in bitcoin/bitcoin#16856.
I have a branch with this approach in https://github.com/stratospher/bitcoin/commits/2025_02_remove_block_failed_child/.
Compared to the version in #16856, it also resets `BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD` already on disk to `BLOCK_FAILED_VALID` when loading from disk so that we won't be in a dirty state in a no-`BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD`-world.
I'm not sure if it's a good idea to remove `BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD` though. would be curious to hear what others think of this approach.
thanks @ mzumsande for helpful discussion regarding this PR!
</details>
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 3c3548a
TheCharlatan:
Re-ACK 3c3548a
mzumsande:
re-ACK 3c3548a
Tree-SHA512: 83e0d29dea95b97519d4868135c965b86f6f43be50b15c0bd8f998b3476388fc7cc22b49c0c54ec532ae8222e57dfc436438f0c8e98f54757b384f220488b6a6
0 commit comments