log: reword `signature validations` to `script verification` in `assumevalid` log
What the developer wrote
Authored by Lőrinc
log: reword `signature validations` to `script verification` in `assumevalid` log
Even though not all script verification is turned off currently (e.g. we're still doing the cheaper sigop counts), this naming is more consistent with other usages.
What changed, and why it matters
This commit only rewords a log message and updates the matching test. It changes 'signature validations' to 'script verification' in a progress/debug log line and fixes a typo in a comment. There is no functional code change and no security impact.
No action required; this is a non-functional log-message rewording.
Security signals we found
No strong security signals were identified.
Evidence from the diff
The diff modifies a single LogInfo() call in src/validation.cpp to use the phrase ‘script verification’ instead of ‘signature validations’, and updates the expected log strings in test/functional/feature_assumevalid.py accordingly. It also fixes a minor typo in a test comment (‘and invalid’ -> ‘an invalid’) and updates a copyright year range. The fScriptChecks logic and behavior are unchanged.
Changed components
src/validation.cpp logging outputtest/functional/feature_assumevalid.pyInspect captured patch +13 / −5
diff --git a/src/validation.cpp b/src/validation.cpp
index 8fcc719a..e3714192 100644
--- a/src/validation.cpp
+++ b/src/validation.cpp
@@ -2564,7 +2564,13 @@ bool Chainstate::ConnectBlock(const CBlock& block, BlockValidationState& state,
Ticks<MillisecondsDouble>(m_chainman.time_forks) / m_chainman.num_blocks_total);
if (fScriptChecks != m_prev_script_checks_logged && GetRole() == ChainstateRole::NORMAL) {
- LogInfo("%s signature validations at block #%d (%s).", fScriptChecks ? "Enabling" : "Disabling", pindex->nHeight, block_hash.ToString());
+ if (fScriptChecks) {
+ LogInfo("Enabling script verification at block #%d (%s).",
+ pindex->nHeight, block_hash.ToString());
+ } else {
+ LogInfo("Disabling script verification at block #%d (%s).",
+ pindex->nHeight, block_hash.ToString());
+ }
m_prev_script_checks_logged = fScriptChecks;
}
diff --git a/test/functional/feature_assumevalid.py b/test/functional/feature_assumevalid.py
index 5f7fff82..2cc4c754 100755
--- a/test/functional/feature_assumevalid.py
+++ b/test/functional/feature_assumevalid.py
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
#!/usr/bin/env python3
-# Copyright (c) 2014-2022 The Bitcoin Core developers
+# Copyright (c) 2014-present The Bitcoin Core developers
# Distributed under the MIT software license, see the accompanying
# file COPYING or http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php.
"""Test logic for skipping signature validation on old blocks.
@@ -7,8 +7,7 @@
Test logic for skipping signature validation on blocks which we've assumed
valid (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9484)
-We build a chain that includes and invalid signature for one of the
-transactions:
+We build a chain that includes an invalid signature for one of the transactions:
0: genesis block
1: block 1 with coinbase transaction output.
@@ -153,7 +152,10 @@ class AssumeValidTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
p2p1 = self.nodes[1].add_p2p_connection(BaseNode())
p2p1.send_header_for_blocks(self.blocks[0:2000])
p2p1.send_header_for_blocks(self.blocks[2000:])
- with self.nodes[1].assert_debug_log(expected_msgs=['Disabling signature validations at block #1', 'Enabling signature validations at block #103']):
+ with self.nodes[1].assert_debug_log(expected_msgs=[
+ "Disabling script verification at block #1",
+ "Enabling script verification at block #103",
+ ]):
# Send all blocks to node1. All blocks will be accepted.
for i in range(2202):
p2p1.send_without_ping(msg_block(self.blocks[i]))
Why this scored 15/100
Community notes
Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.
The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.