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

test: verify node state after restart in assumeutxo

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Yash Bhutwala

100/100 · Strong
test: verify node state after restart in assumeutxo

Replace the TODO comment in wallet_assumeutxo.py with actual test
assertions that verify node and wallet behavior after a restart
during assumeutxo background sync.

The new tests verify:
- Two chainstates exist (background validation not complete)
- Background chainstate is still at START_HEIGHT
- Snapshot chainstate has synced to at least PAUSE_HEIGHT
- Wallets cannot be loaded after restart (expected behavior during
background sync because blocks before snapshot are unavailable
for rescanning)
- Wallet backup from before snapshot height cannot be restored

This documents the expected behavior that wallets cannot be loaded
after a node restart during assumeutxo background sync, which is
an important edge case for users to be aware of.

refs #28648
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Uses a recognizable type or scope✓ 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 code to Bitcoin Core's functional test suite. It does not change any production wallet, node, or consensus logic. The new tests document an existing limitation: if a node is restarted while it is still doing the background validation for an assumeutxo snapshot, wallets that need older blocks cannot be loaded until the background sync finishes. This is a test-only change that records expected behavior, not a fix for a security bug.

Recommended action

No security action needed. Review as normal test-only quality improvement if desired.

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.