fix: bump PORT_RANGE 5000->10000

[UdjinM6]

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

Alternative solution to the issue described here #6901 (comment)

The fix was included in this PR to deal with sporadic errors that affect CI results for this PR (the builds cited above are from this PR). The failure seems to be because of HTTP server port conflict and because the test is short, all 3 attempts can be exhausted before the test that is already using that HTTP port exits.

What was done?

How Has This Been Tested?

Breaking Changes

n/a

Checklist:

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• I have assigned this pull request to a milestone (for repository code-owners and collaborators only)

[github-actions]

✅ No Merge Conflicts Detected

This PR currently has no conflicts with other open PRs.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The public constant PORT_RANGE in test/functional/test_framework/util.py is increased from 5000 to 10000, effectively doubling the available port range used for distributing test ports across parallel test instances. This change directly impacts the port calculation logic for p2p and RPC ports without modifying control flow or error handling mechanisms.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

• Verify that the new port range (10000) is sufficient and appropriate for the number of parallel test instances that can run concurrently
• Confirm no hardcoded port assumptions elsewhere depend on the previous 5000 range
• Check if any documentation, comments, or configuration files reference the old PORT_RANGE value and require updates

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately reflects the main change: bumping PORT_RANGE from 5000 to 10000, which is the sole observable modification in the changeset.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description is related to the changeset, explaining the rationale for the PORT_RANGE increase to address HTTP server port conflicts in CI, even though implementation details are sparse.

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9b1b2c6 and 15445d3.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• test/functional/test_framework/util.py (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

📓 Path-based instructions (1)

test/functional/**/*.py

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (CLAUDE.md)

Functional tests should be written in Python and placed in test/functional/

Files:

• test/functional/test_framework/util.py

🧠 Learnings (1)

📚 Learning: 2025-06-09T16:43:20.996Z

Learnt from: kwvg
Repo: dashpay/dash PR: 6718
File: test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py:2102-2102
Timestamp: 2025-06-09T16:43:20.996Z
Learning: In the test framework consolidation PR (#6718), user kwvg prefers to limit functional changes to those directly related to MasternodeInfo, avoiding scope creep even for minor improvements like error handling consistency.

Applied to files:

• test/functional/test_framework/util.py

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)

• GitHub Check: Build container / Build container

🔇 Additional comments (1)

test/functional/test_framework/util.py (1)

314-314: LGTM! Doubling PORT_RANGE should reduce port conflicts.

This change doubles the available port distribution space from ~4,979 to ~9,979 slots, which should significantly reduce the probability of port collisions during parallel test execution. The new port ranges (p2p: ~11000-21000, rpc: ~21000-31000) are well within the valid port range and don't conflict with common reserved ports.

Please verify through CI runs that this change resolves the sporadic port conflict failures mentioned in the PR objectives.

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[kwvg]

I think we should also pick a different seed (the original proposed fix, 0574b44, modified the port seed but I think the test seed itself should also be randomised as that's closer to what a re-run of the test would achieve)

[UdjinM6]

@kwvg pls check PORT_RANGE's usage. Shifting or randomizing portseed won't fix conflicts, it might make it even worse imo.

[PastaPastaPasta]

utACK 15445d3