core: anchor relative locktime/threshold recipes to the built tx locktime so an unchanged will no longer reads as expired/postponed; stop the daily invalidate prompt (karen7)

tests/test_sync_locktime_built_txs.py

@@ -0,0 +1,191 @@
+"""
+Tests for ``BalBuildWillDialog._sync_locktime_to_built_txs``.
+
+This is the post-build sync that keeps the plugin's stored delivery date
+(WILL_SETTINGS["locktime"]) and check-alive threshold in lockstep with the
+BUILT transactions' fixed locktime.  The bug it fixes (reported by the owner):
+
+    ADVANCED mode + RELATIVE locktime ("90d") / threshold ("30d") -> the plugin
+    asks to invalidate the will EVERY DAY.  The relative value is re-parsed
+    against "now" on every check, so it drifts one day per day away from the
+    fixed tx locktime and the postpone check always sees a "postpone".
+
+The method is exercised with a lightweight fake ``self`` (no Qt event loop, no
+Electrum wallet) by calling it as an unbound method.
+
+Run:
+    source /home/steal/devel/bal/electrum/env/bin/activate
+    python3 tests/test_sync_locktime_built_txs.py
+"""
+
+import os
+import sys
+from types import SimpleNamespace
+
+sys.path.insert(0, os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), os.pardir))
+
+from bal.core.plugin_base import BalTimestamp  # noqa: E402  (path insert above)
+from bal.gui.qt.dialogs import BalBuildWillDialog  # noqa: E402  (path insert above)
+
+# ------------------------------------------------------------------ #
+# Fakes
+# ------------------------------------------------------------------ #
+
+def _fake_willitem(tx_locktime):
+    """Minimal stand-in for a WillItem: enough for Will.get_min_locktime."""
+    return SimpleNamespace(
+        tx=SimpleNamespace(locktime=tx_locktime),
+        get_status=lambda name: True,
+    )
+
+
+def _make_dialog(will_settings, tx_locktimes, recorded):
+    """Build a fake dialog ``self`` for _sync_locktime_to_built_txs."""
+
+    def update_setting_widgets(new_value, field, update_all=False):
+        will_settings[field] = new_value
+        recorded.append((field, new_value, update_all))
+
+    return SimpleNamespace(
+        bal_window=SimpleNamespace(
+            willitems={
+                f"tx{i}": _fake_willitem(lt) for i, lt in enumerate(tx_locktimes)
+            },
+            will_settings=will_settings,
+            update_setting_widgets=update_setting_widgets,
+        ),
+        _date_was_anticipated=False,
+    )
+
+
+def _call_sync(will_settings, tx_locktimes, recorded):
+    fake = _make_dialog(will_settings, tx_locktimes, recorded)
+    BalBuildWillDialog._sync_locktime_to_built_txs(fake)
+    return fake
+
+
+# ------------------------------------------------------------------ #
+# Tests
+# ------------------------------------------------------------------ #
+
+def test_relative_locktime_normalized_to_absolute():
+    """The reported bug: a relative stored locktime is frozen to the absolute
+    value of the built transaction, even when it parses to the same moment."""
+    tx_locktime = 1_800_000_000
+    recorded = []
+    fake = _call_sync(
+        {"locktime": "90d", "threshold": "30d"}, [tx_locktime], recorded
+    )
+    assert fake.bal_window.will_settings["locktime"] == tx_locktime
+    assert fake.bal_window.will_settings["locktime"] != "90d"
+    # A pure relative->absolute normalisation is NOT an anticipation: the sign
+    # prompt must not claim the date was anticipated.
+    assert fake._date_was_anticipated is False
+
+
+def test_relative_threshold_frozen_to_absolute():
+    """A relative threshold ("N days BEFORE the delivery") is normalised to the
+    same absolute value the settings widget computes (real_threshold)."""
+    tx_locktime = 1_800_000_000
+    recorded = []
+    fake = _call_sync(
+        {"locktime": "90d", "threshold": "30d"}, [tx_locktime], recorded
+    )
+    expected = int(
+        BalTimestamp("30d").to_date(tx_locktime, reverse=True).timestamp()
+    )
+    assert fake.bal_window.will_settings["threshold"] == expected
+    assert ("threshold", expected, True) in recorded
+
+
+def test_absolute_locktime_unchanged_on_equal():
+    """An absolute stored locktime that already matches the built txs is left
+    untouched (no spurious rewrite)."""
+    tx_locktime = 1_800_000_000
+    recorded = []
+    fake = _call_sync(
+        {"locktime": tx_locktime, "threshold": 1_700_000_000},
+        [tx_locktime],
+        recorded,
+    )
+    assert fake.bal_window.will_settings["locktime"] == tx_locktime
+    assert fake._date_was_anticipated is False
+
+
+def test_anticipation_sets_flag_and_moves_earlier():
+    """A real anticipation (built locktime earlier than the stored absolute
+    one) still moves the date earlier and flags the sign prompt."""
+    tx_locktime = 1_700_000_000
+    recorded = []
+    fake = _call_sync(
+        {"locktime": 1_800_000_000, "threshold": 1_600_000_000},
+        [tx_locktime],
+        recorded,
+    )
+    assert fake.bal_window.will_settings["locktime"] == tx_locktime
+    assert fake._date_was_anticipated is True
+
+
+def test_stored_earlier_than_built_never_moved_later():
+    """A stored absolute date that is already EARLIER than the built txs (the
+    user moved the delivery later) is never pulled back up on rebuild: only
+    anticipation (built < stored) and relative normalisation move the value."""
+    stored = 1_800_000_000
+    recorded = []
+    fake = _call_sync(
+        {"locktime": stored, "threshold": 1_700_000_000},
+        [1_900_000_000],
+        recorded,
+    )
+    assert fake.bal_window.will_settings["locktime"] == stored
+    assert fake._date_was_anticipated is False
+
+
+def test_multiple_txs_uses_minimum_locktime():
+    """When several transactions carry different locktimes, the minimum is used
+    (owner-confirmed behaviour for the delivery date shown in the UI)."""
+    min_locktime = 1_750_000_000
+    recorded = []
+    fake = _call_sync(
+        {"locktime": "90d", "threshold": "30d"},
+        [min_locktime, min_locktime + 86_400],
+        recorded,
+    )
+    assert fake.bal_window.will_settings["locktime"] == min_locktime
+
+
+def test_relative_locktime_stops_daily_postpone():
+    """End-to-end guard for the reported bug: after the sync, re-parsing the
+    stored (now absolute) locktime on later days always equals the built
+    tx locktime, so the postpone check never fires again."""
+    from datetime import datetime, timedelta
+
+    from bal.core.util import Util
+
+    tx_locktime = 1_800_000_000
+    recorded = []
+    fake = _call_sync(
+        {"locktime": "90d", "threshold": "30d"}, [tx_locktime], recorded
+    )
+    stored = fake.bal_window.will_settings["locktime"]
+    for _day in range(0, 7):
+        # Simulate the check on later days: parse the STORED value (which is
+        # now the absolute tx locktime) and compare with the fixed tx locktime.
+        new_locktime = Util.parse_locktime_string(stored)
+        assert new_locktime == tx_locktime
+        assert new_locktime <= tx_locktime  # no POSTPONE / drift
+    # Sanity: a RELATIVE value would have drifted past it (the bug).
+    drifted = int(
+        (
+            datetime.fromtimestamp(tx_locktime) + timedelta(days=1)
+        ).timestamp()
+    )
+    assert drifted > tx_locktime
+
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    for name in sorted(dir()):
+        if name.startswith("test_"):
+            globals()[name]()
+            print(f"  [OK] {name}")
+    print("[OK] All sync_locktime_built_txs tests passed.")