fuzz: Assert roundtrip equality for CPubKey
#22271
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Contributor
Author
|
ping @practicalswift |
Contributor
|
crACK 9550dff pending CI |
Contributor
sidhujag
pushed a commit
to syscoin/syscoin
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 18, 2021
9550dff fuzz: Assert roundtrip equality for `CPubKey` (Sebastian Falbesoner) Pull request description: This PR is a (quite late) follow-up to bitcoin#19237 (bitcoin#19237 (comment)). Looking at `CPubKey::Serialize` and `CPubKey::Unserialize` I can't think of a scenario where the roundtrip (serialization/deserialization) equality wouldn't hold. ACKs for top commit: jamesob: crACK bitcoin@9550dff pending CI Tree-SHA512: 640fb9e777d249769b22ee52c0b15a68ff0645b16c986e1c0bce9742155d14f1be601e591833e1dc8dcffebf271966c6b861b90888a44aae1feae2e0248e2c55
gwillen
pushed a commit
to ElementsProject/elements
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 1, 2022
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR is a (quite late) follow-up to #19237 (#19237 (comment)). Looking at
CPubKey::SerializeandCPubKey::UnserializeI can't think of a scenario where the roundtrip (serialization/deserialization) equality wouldn't hold.