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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Fix unit test rpc.confirmation_info (remove scheduler flush) #3735

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 14, 2022
+1 −3
Merged

Fix unit test rpc.confirmation_info (remove scheduler flush) #3735

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
68143bb
Fix unit test rpc.confirmation_info (remove scheduler flush)
dsiganos Feb 12, 2022
ff223b5
Changes after review
dsiganos Feb 14, 2022
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 1 addition & 3 deletions nano/rpc_test/rpc.cpp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -6246,9 +6246,7 @@ TEST (rpc, confirmation_info)

auto send (std::make_shared<nano::send_block> (nano::dev::genesis->hash (), nano::public_key (), nano::dev::constants.genesis_amount - 100, nano::dev::genesis_key.prv, nano::dev::genesis_key.pub, *system.work.generate (nano::dev::genesis->hash ())));
node1->process_active (send);
node1->block_processor.flush ();
node1->scheduler.flush ();
ASSERT_FALSE (node1->active.empty ());
ASSERT_TIMELY (10s, node1->active.empty () == false);
Copy link
Contributor

@theohax theohax Feb 14, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We've been using 5s as a timeout for changes to AEC that we expect to see. Not that it matters in its absolute value (the timeout), but since we are kind of reworking these things now, unless there's a reason not to stick to the same value, it's probably better to keep it consistent at least in unit tests that we change if not in old ones as well.

Also, an even less important nitpick, but just thinking out loud in case you decide to do any addressing (otherwise please don't bother changing just this) -- I haven't seen boolVariable == false or boolVariable == true usages across the codebase, so again for consistency reasons we might be better off with the existing if (boolVariable) / if (!boolVariable) style.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@dsiganos dsiganos Feb 14, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Personally I find 5 seconds to be a little too low for comfort. But I am OK to follow that pattern if that is what you guys decided. It should probably be OK.

If find this to be more easily readable

ASSERT_TIMELY (10s, node1->active.empty () == false);

than this:

ASSERT_TIMELY (10s, !node1->active.empty ());

The ! character is too easy miss in the middle of a statement.
Although I have no objection to using ! instead of == false.


boost::property_tree::ptree request;
request.put ("action", "confirmation_info");
Expand Down