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

Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#35630: test: Add importdescriptors rpc error test coverage

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by merge-script

100/100 · Strong
Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#35630: test: Add importdescriptors rpc error test coverage

3ac8b806a699a1d518ce225b39aa504f84b4cc06 test: test the result order of a multiple import request is correct (Pol Espinasa)
e4732bf01876cbe5f8e1a02a75e08f435de1aef4 test: test invalid or missing timestamp throws importdescriptors (Pol Espinasa)
07fb58b9ef2560d2f34f4ce676bc5eb64554d2de test: Test a locked wallet rejects an empty importdescriptors request (Pol Espinasa)

Pull request description:

In addition to #35179 (already merged) this adds more missing test coverage that was detected while rebasing #34861.

The three tests added checks:
- Locked wallet throws because of being locked if giving an empty importdescriptors request.
- Invalid or missing timestamp throws as a top level RPC error and not a per-item error.
- The order of the requests and the response is the same, even if failing or succeeding.

ACKs for top commit:
nebula-21:
ACK 3ac8b806a699a1d518ce225b39aa504f84b4cc06
Bicaru20:
re-ACK 3ac8b806a699a1d518ce225b39aa504f84b4cc06
brunoerg:
reACK 3ac8b806a699a1d518ce225b39aa504f84b4cc06

Tree-SHA512: b6ba9e16bbdbefcab2529f49f9aab0ae8885bd2d381c6eec36ae442dea1aa2361e6fb339ab5bc2c51c3bef6216d8d939db53e57ec577f05fe54c07fc46f8f255
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context✓ Explains rationale or failure mode✓ Mentions testing or verification✓ Links an issue, advisory, or supporting reference
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit only adds new test cases to Bitcoin Core's functional test suite. It does not change any production wallet, node, or RPC code. The tests verify that the importdescriptors RPC reports errors in the right order, rejects bad timestamps, and handles locked wallets correctly. There is no security fix or vulnerability being introduced.

Recommended action

No action required. This is a routine test-coverage addition. Reviewers may optionally run the updated functional test to confirm it passes.

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.