Skip to content

Conversation

@Nishikoh
Copy link

@Nishikoh Nishikoh commented May 1, 2020

Previously, wait_for_getheaders only looked for the presence of a recent "getheaders" message. Additionally checking the hashstop inside the message should make tests involving wait_for_getheaders more robust.

Issue: #18614

@fanquake fanquake added the Tests label May 1, 2020
@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

DrahtBot commented May 1, 2020

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.

@Nishikoh
Copy link
Author

Rebased.

@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

DrahtBot commented Aug 4, 2020

🐙 This pull request conflicts with the target branch and needs rebase.

Want to unsubscribe from rebase notifications on this pull request? Just convert this pull request to a "draft".

@robot-dreams
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for working on this!

Yes, I agree that hash_stop is something we might consider checking. However, I'm worried that because most of the time calls to getheaders pass a hash_stop value of 0 (to indicate "get as many blocks as possible") rather than a specific block's hash value, replacing the existing logic with a hash_stop check might not actually make the tests more robust.

What do you think?

@adamjonas
Copy link
Member

Hi @Nishikoh - would you mind replying to robot-dream's comment as well as rebasing this?

@Nishikoh Nishikoh closed this Jun 18, 2021
@bitcoin bitcoin locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 18, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants