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

test: restorewallet, coverage for existing dirs, unnamed wallet and prune failure

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by furszy

95/100 · Strong
test: restorewallet, coverage for existing dirs, unnamed wallet and prune failure

The first test verifies that restoring into an existing empty directory
or a directory with no .dat db files succeeds, while restoring into a
dir with a .dat file fails.

The second test covers restoring into the default unnamed wallet
(wallet.dat), which also implicitly exercises the recovery path used
after a failed migration.

The third test covers failure during restore on a prune node. When
the wallet last sync was beyond the pruning height.
✓ Specific, 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 adds new automated tests for the wallet restore feature in Bitcoin Core. It does not change any production wallet code. The tests verify that restoring a wallet backup behaves correctly in edge cases: restoring into an empty directory, a directory with unrelated files, a directory that already contains a wallet database file, the default unnamed wallet file, and a pruned node where the backup is too old. Because no actual wallet logic is modified, this commit does not introduce or fix a live security issue on its own.

Recommended action

No security action required. Review the tests as normal QA/regression coverage. If these tests were added because of a known bug, look for the corresponding production-code fix in a separate commit.

Security signals we found

01

test-only change

02

no production code modified

03

no RPC behavior changes

04

adds regression/edge-case coverage for restorewallet

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.