Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

tapchannel: add specifier in property test rfq generator #1339

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 30, 2025

Conversation

GeorgeTsagk
Copy link
Member

We include the asset specifier in the generated quotes of the property test framework. This is needed as now the aux invoice HTLC interceptor performs an extra check, according to which the asset ID in the rfq and the wire records must match.

PR #1299 introduced this check

We include the asset specifier in the generated quotes of the property
test framework. This is needed as now the aux invoice HTLC interceptor
performs an extra check, according to which the asset ID in the rfq and
the wire records must match.
Copy link
Member

@guggero guggero left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

tACK, a couple dozen iterations of make flake-unit pkg=tapchannel didn't fail anymore, whereas on master it would fail within a couple of iterations.

Thanks for the fix!

@coveralls
Copy link

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 13032572975

Details

  • 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
  • 25 unchanged lines in 4 files lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage increased (+0.009%) to 40.752%

Files with Coverage Reduction New Missed Lines %
tapchannel/aux_leaf_signer.go 3 43.43%
asset/mock.go 7 91.69%
asset/asset.go 7 77.0%
tapgarden/caretaker.go 8 68.49%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 13022299719: 0.009%
Covered Lines: 26782
Relevant Lines: 65720

💛 - Coveralls

@guggero guggero requested a review from gijswijs January 29, 2025 14:12
@guggero guggero merged commit da1dcc9 into lightninglabs:main Jan 30, 2025
18 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: ✅ Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants