Skip to content

Conversation

@knst
Copy link
Collaborator

@knst knst commented Jun 28, 2023

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

#5471

What was done?

It splits from #5443

Adds extra unit tests for BLS basic scheme; enforces BLS basic for Evo Nodes in serialization/unserialization of CProRegTx, CProUpServTx.

How Has This Been Tested?

Run functional/unit tests + added new unit tests.

Breaking Changes

Serialization slightly changed, but it should be not breaking change

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

@knst knst added this to the 20 milestone Jun 28, 2023
Copy link

@ogabrielides ogabrielides left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could add the same check on CProRegTx.

@knst knst requested a review from ogabrielides June 28, 2023 10:05
ogabrielides
ogabrielides previously approved these changes Jun 28, 2023
Copy link

@ogabrielides ogabrielides left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

utACK

Copy link

@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we should really have similar checks in corresponding IsTriviallyValids too

ogabrielides
ogabrielides previously approved these changes Jun 30, 2023
Copy link

@ogabrielides ogabrielides left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

utACK

@knst
Copy link
Collaborator Author

knst commented Jun 30, 2023

we should really have similar checks in corresponding IsTriviallyValids too

We indeed need to have this validation, I added them in PR. Btw, there's no unit tests for it because:

    //TODO: Provide raw data for basic scheme as well

I created issue for it: #5471

@knst knst requested a review from UdjinM6 June 30, 2023 07:58
@knst knst marked this pull request as draft June 30, 2023 11:03
@knst knst changed the title fix: for HPMN should be used only bls basic, enforce that rule fix: for Evo MN should be used only bls basic, enforce that rule Jul 31, 2023
PastaPastaPasta pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 31, 2023
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
It partially resolves issue #5471

Better unit tests are needed to validate changes in ProTx implementation
such as this PR: #5463

## What was done?
- Invalid ProTx transactions are checked more strictly. The flag "tx is
failed" is not enough now for test to succeed, but error code should
matched with expected error.
- Duplicated implementations of tests for "valid" and "invalid
transaction" are changed to more general code.
- Added extra log output with tx ID for easier debug - to see which
exactly tx is failed in test
 - Supported more by 256 txes in one json file

## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit tests

## Breaking Changes
N/A

## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
@github-actions
Copy link

This pull request has conflicts, please rebase.

@knst knst force-pushed the bls-deglobal-HPMN branch 2 times, most recently from 1ef2b6f to 11add29 Compare September 18, 2023 12:07
@knst knst changed the title fix: for Evo MN should be used only bls basic, enforce that rule feat: improving unit tests for Basic BLS and enforcing Basic BLS for Evo Nodes Sep 18, 2023
@knst knst marked this pull request as ready for review September 18, 2023 12:18
@knst knst requested a review from UdjinM6 September 18, 2023 12:18
Copy link

@ogabrielides ogabrielides left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ACK 👍

Copy link

@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

utACK

@knst knst modified the milestones: 20, 21 Oct 23, 2023
@ogabrielides
Copy link

@PastaPastaPasta Reasons for keeping this one open?

@PastaPastaPasta
Copy link
Member

It seems like we're not gonna merge this for v20 right? I think that's better but that's correct right?

@knst
Copy link
Collaborator Author

knst commented Oct 31, 2023

@knst knst modified the milestones: 20, 21 Oct 23, 2023 last week

It seems like we're not gonna merge this for v20 right? I think that's better but that's correct right?

I intentionally changed milestone to v21 - we have already RC; let's don't increase scope for v20.

@UdjinM6
Copy link

UdjinM6 commented Oct 31, 2023

Hmm... I would actually suggest to merge it into v20 - it streamlines the logic and extends unit tests a lot. Imo it a valuable one.

Copy link
Member

@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

utACK for squash merge

// unknown version, bail out early
return;
}

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit unrelated

@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta modified the milestones: 21, 20 Nov 8, 2023
@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta merged commit 8022b44 into dashpay:develop Nov 8, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants