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

test: Add missing resolve() to valgrind.supp file

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by MarcoFalke

100/100 · Strong
test: Add missing resolve() to valgrind.supp file

Normally, when a symlinked test script is executed directly (e.g.,
`./bld-cmake/test/functional/wallet_disable.py`), Python's default
behavior is to resolve the symlink of the script itself, setting
`sys.path[0]` to the directory containing the physical source file.
Consequently, the test framework util.py is imported from the source
tree, and `Path(__file__).parents[3]` correctly resolves to the source
root.

However, `feature_framework_testshell.py` is unique because it manually
inserts `Path(__file__).parent` into `sys.path`. That refers to the
build tree and when importing the test framework util.py, the
`Path(__file__).parents[3]` will incorrectly point to the build
directory instead of the source root.

Use `.resolve()` to ensure the Valgrind suppressions file path is always
calculated relative to the physical source file, regardless of how the
framework was imported.
✓ 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
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This is a one-line fix in Bitcoin Core's test framework. It ensures that when running tests under the Valgrind memory-checking tool, the correct suppressions file is found even if the test script is accessed through a symbolic link. It does not change the Bitcoin node software itself and has no security impact on users' funds or the network.

Recommended action

No security action needed. Treat as a normal test-framework correctness fix.

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.