test: [refactor] Avoid calling private ProcessMessage() function
What the developer wrote
Authored by MarcoFalke
test: [refactor] Avoid calling private ProcessMessage() function
Calling this low-level function from tests is confusing, and also makes
it harder to change the peer manager implementation.
So juse use the pre-existing test helpers to achieve the same.
What changed, and why it matters
This is a test-only code cleanup. It changes how one Bitcoin Core unit test feeds network messages into the peer manager, switching from a direct call to an internal function to using existing test helper utilities. There is no change to production code and no security issue.
No action needed. Treat as normal test refactor.
Security signals we found
No strong security signals were identified.
Evidence from the diff
The commit refactors src/test/net_tests.cpp to stop calling the private PeerManager::ProcessMessage() directly. Instead, it uses the test helper ConnmanTestMsg::ReceiveMsgFrom() and ProcessMessagesOnce() to deliver VERSION and VERACK messages. This is purely a test-code maintainability refactor; no production networking logic is modified.
Changed components
src/test/net_tests.cppInspect captured patch +16 / −12
diff --git a/src/test/net_tests.cpp b/src/test/net_tests.cpp
index aea29169..ff2083de 100644
--- a/src/test/net_tests.cpp
+++ b/src/test/net_tests.cpp
@@ -6,7 +6,6 @@
#include <clientversion.h>
#include <common/args.h>
#include <compat/compat.h>
-#include <cstdint>
#include <net.h>
#include <net_processing.h>
#include <netaddress.h>
@@ -16,6 +15,7 @@
#include <serialize.h>
#include <span.h>
#include <streams.h>
+#include <test/util/net.h>
#include <test/util/random.h>
#include <test/util/setup_common.h>
#include <test/util/validation.h>
@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
#include <boost/test/unit_test.hpp>
#include <algorithm>
+#include <cstdint>
#include <ios>
#include <memory>
#include <optional>
@@ -802,6 +803,7 @@ BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(LocalAddress_BasicLifecycle)
BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(initial_advertise_from_version_message)
{
LOCK(NetEventsInterface::g_msgproc_mutex);
+ auto& connman{static_cast<ConnmanTestMsg&>(*m_node.connman)};
// Tests the following scenario:
// * -bind=3.4.5.6:20001 is specified
@@ -845,22 +847,24 @@ BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(initial_advertise_from_version_message)
m_node.peerman->InitializeNode(peer, NODE_NETWORK);
- std::atomic<bool> interrupt_dummy{false};
- std::chrono::microseconds time_received_dummy{0};
+ m_node.peerman->SendMessages(&peer);
+ connman.FlushSendBuffer(peer); // Drop sent version message
- const auto msg_version =
+ auto msg_version_receive =
NetMsg::Make(NetMsgType::VERSION, PROTOCOL_VERSION, services, time, services, CAddress::V1_NETWORK(peer_us));
- DataStream msg_version_stream{msg_version.data};
+ Assert(connman.ReceiveMsgFrom(peer, std::move(msg_version_receive)));
+ peer.fPauseSend = false;
+ bool more_work{connman.ProcessMessagesOnce(peer)};
+ Assert(!more_work);
- m_node.peerman->ProcessMessage(
- peer, NetMsgType::VERSION, msg_version_stream, time_received_dummy, interrupt_dummy);
-
- const auto msg_verack = NetMsg::Make(NetMsgType::VERACK);
- DataStream msg_verack_stream{msg_verack.data};
+ m_node.peerman->SendMessages(&peer);
+ connman.FlushSendBuffer(peer); // Drop sent verack message
+ Assert(connman.ReceiveMsgFrom(peer, NetMsg::Make(NetMsgType::VERACK)));
+ peer.fPauseSend = false;
// Will set peer.fSuccessfullyConnected to true (necessary in SendMessages()).
- m_node.peerman->ProcessMessage(
- peer, NetMsgType::VERACK, msg_verack_stream, time_received_dummy, interrupt_dummy);
+ more_work = connman.ProcessMessagesOnce(peer);
+ Assert(!more_work);
// Ensure that peer_us_addr:bind_port is sent to the peer.
const CService expected{peer_us_addr, bind_port};
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.