QA: feature_filelock, interface_bitcoin_cli: Use PACKAGE_NAME in messages rather than hardcoding Bitcoin Core#15896
Merged
maflcko merged 1 commit intobitcoin:masterfrom Apr 26, 2019
Merged
Conversation
…ages rather than hardcoding Bitcoin Core
Contributor
|
utACK fcc443b |
maflcko
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 26, 2019
…E_NAME in messages rather than hardcoding Bitcoin Core fcc443b QA: feature_filelock, interface_bitcoin_cli: Use PACKAGE_NAME in messages rather than hardcoding Bitcoin Core (Luke Dashjr) Pull request description: ACKs for commit fcc443: practicalswift: utACK fcc443b Tree-SHA512: f87cfea3cb2ac716a5c9a507141dcba18cb0e3cbe17a4114ed11fa283c3d38551cc245ef68f8816c51538d492991e71019d20a9ca4acd22af4f99e631c04d33e
Contributor
|
utACK fcc443b. |
Member
|
It seems |
Member
|
Normally ignoring AppVeyor failures isn't a huge issue, but this PR changed |
Sjors
reviewed
Apr 26, 2019
|
|
||
| cli_response = self.nodes[0].cli("-version").send_cli() | ||
| assert "Bitcoin Core RPC client version" in cli_response | ||
| assert "{} RPC client version".format(self.config['environment']['PACKAGE_NAME']) in cli_response |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can this be replaced with an assert_equal test? That makes it easier to debug whether there's a problem with the testsuite or the binary in AppVeyor.
(most likely the problem is with the test, since this PR only touched the test)
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note that in other places self is left out, e.g. '/src/bitcoind' + config["environment"]["EXEEXT"]
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
assert_equal doesn't work because the version is suffixed by the commit
$ ./src/bitcoin-cli -version
Bitcoin Core RPC client version v0.18.99.0-b1e013e4fa
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess you could strip the commit, but 🤷♂️
Sjors
reviewed
Apr 26, 2019
| # test/functional/test_runner.py and test/util/bitcoin-util-test.py | ||
|
|
||
| [environment] | ||
| PACKAGE_NAME=@PACKAGE_NAME@ |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You probably need to add something here, though I'm not sure what:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/.appveyor.yml#L41-L48
maflcko
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 26, 2019
faebd8c appveyor: Write @PACKAGE_NAME@ to config (MarcoFalke) Pull request description: fix tests which are currently failing on appveyor after #15896 ACKs for commit faebd8: Sjors: utACK faebd8c if AppVeyor blesses it. ryanofsky: utACK faebd8c. Not following your own "Please provide clear motivation for your patch" advice maybe, but I gather the motivation is to fix tests which are currently failing on appveyor after #15896? Tree-SHA512: 645cc9f82a4897659bfd41d0c645e21201c43bceb36a073e7fa9fff6d38e8190e7b23e44f77f18ecf3cd1794a9a11b8cabfb33d1a477e7417d839f9451b8253d
jasonbcox
pushed a commit
to Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 1, 2020
…KAGE_NAME in messages rather than hardcoding Bitcoin Core Summary: QA: feature_filelock, interface_bitcoin_cli: Use PACKAGE_NAME in messages rather than hardcoding Bitcoin Core (Luke Dashjr) bitcoin/bitcoin@fcc443b --- Backport of Core [[bitcoin/bitcoin#15896 | PR15896]] Test Plan: ninja clean && ninja ./test_runner.py feature_filelock interface_bitcoin_cli Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, jasonbcox Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, jasonbcox Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D7107
Munkybooty
pushed a commit
to Munkybooty/dash
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 14, 2021
… PACKAGE_NAME in messages rather than hardcoding Bitcoin Core fcc443b QA: feature_filelock, interface_bitcoin_cli: Use PACKAGE_NAME in messages rather than hardcoding Bitcoin Core (Luke Dashjr) Pull request description: ACKs for commit fcc443: practicalswift: utACK fcc443b Tree-SHA512: f87cfea3cb2ac716a5c9a507141dcba18cb0e3cbe17a4114ed11fa283c3d38551cc245ef68f8816c51538d492991e71019d20a9ca4acd22af4f99e631c04d33e
pravblockc
pushed a commit
to pravblockc/dash
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 18, 2021
… PACKAGE_NAME in messages rather than hardcoding Bitcoin Core fcc443b QA: feature_filelock, interface_bitcoin_cli: Use PACKAGE_NAME in messages rather than hardcoding Bitcoin Core (Luke Dashjr) Pull request description: ACKs for commit fcc443: practicalswift: utACK fcc443b Tree-SHA512: f87cfea3cb2ac716a5c9a507141dcba18cb0e3cbe17a4114ed11fa283c3d38551cc245ef68f8816c51538d492991e71019d20a9ca4acd22af4f99e631c04d33e
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
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
7 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.
No description provided.