test: expand LimitOrphan and EraseForPeer coverage #30082
Conversation
|
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers. Code CoverageFor detailed information about the code coverage, see the test coverage report. ReviewsSee the guideline for information on the review process.
If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update. ConflictsReviewers, 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. |
src/test/orphanage_tests.cpp
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe out of scope but I wonder if it would be best to add a current_time parameter to the TxOrphanage methods to make it easier to test and fuzz the expiration (also should have a test for the sorting for GetChildrenFromSamePeer results)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
probably a good idea, though you might have better opinions on orphanage interface. I tightened the time testing a bit more by setting mocktime at beginning, then checking boundary conditions via subsequent setting of the time.
instagibbs
force-pushed
the
2024-05-orphan_limit_eraseforpeer
branch
from
bb2389a to
dd7bf60
Compare
instagibbs
force-pushed
the
2024-05-orphan_limit_eraseforpeer
branch
from
dd7bf60 to
6f70bf4
Compare
instagibbs
force-pushed
the
2024-05-orphan_limit_eraseforpeer
branch
from
6f70bf4 to
6831f39
Compare
|
rebased due to silent merge conflict, with cleanups suggested by @glozow 👍 |
glozow
left a comment
glozow
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
almost ack 6831f3972ee5d660ce0bff9bb573745338417544, thanks for taking suggestions
instagibbs
force-pushed
the
2024-05-orphan_limit_eraseforpeer
branch
from
6831f39 to
eaf4de0
Compare
glozow
left a comment
glozow
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ACK eaf4de028de8fa13227b6089785889f1c6c15b4d
instagibbs
force-pushed
the
2024-05-orphan_limit_eraseforpeer
branch
from
eaf4de0 to
172c1ad
Compare
rkrux
left a comment
rkrux
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
reACK 172c1ad
Thanks for very quickly addressing my comments @instagibbs, appreciate it!
|
@achow101 RFM? |
|
ACK 172c1ad |
5 participants
Inspired by refactorings in #30000 as the coverage appeared a bit sparse.
Added some minimal border value testing, timeouts, and tightened existing assertions.