Add test_claim_on_remote_revoked_sizeable_push_msat #256
Conversation
src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated
| @@ -7673,7 +7673,7 @@ mod tests { | |||
| spend_tx.input[0].witness.push(remotepubkey.serialize().to_vec()); | |||
| txn.push(spend_tx); | |||
| }, | |||
| _ => panic!("Unexpected event"), | |||
| _ => { if $expected == true {} else { panic!("Unexpected event")}}, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ouch, I really hate throwing away events. Can you instead refactor the macros to test all of the outputs notified?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done, merge all into one, should have been done at #230 but was already big!
src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated
| assert_eq!(spend_txn.len(), 2); | ||
| assert_eq!(spend_txn[0], spend_txn[1]); | ||
| check_spends!(spend_txn[0], node_txn[0].clone()); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[test] | ||
| fn test_claim_on_remote_revoked_sizeable_push_msat() { | ||
| // Same test as precedent, just test on remote revoked commitment tx, as per_commitment_point registration changes following you're funder/fundee and |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Heh, I guess I didn't catch this in #230, but I think you want "previous" not "precedent".
In consequence, harden spendable outputs tests Fix vocabulary abuse
Aims to ease tests writing/debugging
ariard
force-pushed
the
test_sizeable_remote
branch
from
69cef7b to
ba0549f
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will take as #259 with the changes listed here (skipping the last commit, feel free to slip it in somewhere else if you really want it, or if I'm wrong).
| @@ -4167,6 +4167,27 @@ mod tests { | |||
| nodes | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| macro_rules! display_txn { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, why bother adding this (it looks unused atm)? Can't we just "{:?}" the transaction itself, or did you write this and accidentally commit it?
| check_spends!(spend_tx, node_txn[3].clone()); | ||
| let spend_txn = check_spendable_outputs!(nodes[0], 1); | ||
| assert_eq!(spend_txn.len(), 5); | ||
| assert_eq!(spend_txn[1], spend_txn[3]); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think you meant to assert spend_txn[0] == spend_txn[2] here, too.
Just add a test for the sizeable push_msat branch on revoked tx in check_spend_remote_tx that I forgot in #230
Note : may combine check_output macros into a generic one the future if there is more tests with multiplication of cases.