AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Informational 15 Bitcoin

test: move abortprivatebroadcast test at the end

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Vasil Dimov

90/100 · Strong
test: move abortprivatebroadcast test at the end

The piece of `p2p_private_broadcast.py` which tests the correctness of
`abortprivatebroadcast` issues a new `sendrawtransaction` call. That
call schedules up to 3 new connections: peer=13, peer=14 and possibly
peer=15 before it gets aborted.

These up to 3 in-the-process-of-opening private broadcast connections
have `CNode::m_connected` set early - when the `CNode` object is
created. Later in the test the mock time is advanced by 20 minutes and
those "old" connections pick a transaction for rebroadcast but that
triggers `PRIVATE_BROADCAST_MAX_CONNECTION_LIFETIME` immediately:

```
2026-02-21T13:28:14.209766Z [privbcast] [net.cpp:4006] [CNode] [net] Added connection peer=20
2026-02-21T13:28:14.309792Z (mocktime: 2026-02-21T13:48:14Z) [msghand] [net.cpp:4074] [PushMessage] [net] sending inv (37 bytes) peer=20
2026-02-21T13:28:14.309801Z (mocktime: 2026-02-21T13:48:14Z) [msghand] [net_processing.cpp:5745] [SendMessages] [privatebroadcast] Disconnecting: did not complete the transaction send within 180 seconds, peer=20
```

This prematurely stops the private broadcast connection and results in
a failure like:

```
AssertionError: ... not({} == {'ping': 1, 'tx': 1})
```
✓ Descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Uses a recognizable type or scope✓ Provides detailed explanatory context✓ Mentions testing or verification
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit only moves two test blocks to the end of a single functional test file. It fixes a flaky test failure caused by mock time advancing and prematurely disconnecting private broadcast connections. There is no change to production code, no security fix, and no vulnerability.

Recommended action

No security action required. This is a test-only reliability improvement.

Security signals we found

No strong security signals were identified.

Risk score

Why this scored 15/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 0/30
Exploitability 0/25
Stealth signal 0/15
Affected reach 0/15
Confidence 10/10
Evidence quality 5/5
Human-validated context

Community notes

Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.

No validated notes yet.

The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.