Skip to content

Conversation

@rdeioris
Copy link
Contributor

@rdeioris rdeioris commented Oct 8, 2025

Description

This patch improves the Block Replay endpoint by allowing it to returns the specific vm_error of a failed transaction.

A new test has been added and the TestRPC framework has been improved for allowing the addition of custom transactions in the tip block.

Applicable issues

Additional info (benefits, drawbacks, caveats)

Checklist

  • Test coverage for new or modified code paths
  • Changelog is updated
  • Required documentation changes (e.g., docs/rpc/openapi.yaml and rpc-endpoints.md for v2 endpoints, event-dispatcher.md for new events)
  • New clarity functions have corresponding PR in clarity-benchmarking repo
  • New integration test(s) added to bitcoin-tests.yml

@rdeioris rdeioris marked this pull request as ready for review October 8, 2025 12:10
@rdeioris rdeioris requested review from a team as code owners October 8, 2025 12:10
@rdeioris rdeioris requested review from jcnelson and obycode October 8, 2025 13:16
@janniks
Copy link
Contributor

janniks commented Oct 8, 2025

Awesome! So we can assume any time there is a non-null vm-error string something went wrong, in my case we don't really care what went wrong, but can use the presence as a general failed indicator?

@rdeioris
Copy link
Contributor Author

rdeioris commented Oct 8, 2025

Awesome! So we can assume any time there is a non-null vm-error string something went wrong, in my case we don't really care what went wrong, but can use the presence as a general failed indicator?

Correct, the presence of vm_error signals a runtime error

obycode
obycode previously approved these changes Oct 10, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@obycode obycode left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

@rdeioris rdeioris requested a review from Jiloc October 13, 2025 13:56
Copy link
Member

@jcnelson jcnelson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree with @Jiloc that some documentation is needed. Once it's added then I'll approve. Thanks!

obycode
obycode previously approved these changes Oct 20, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@obycode obycode left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm, just caught one typo

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Oct 23, 2025

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLA assistant check
Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you all sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
1 out of 2 committers have signed the CLA.

✅ rdeioris
❌ rob-stacks
You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants