test: Check that peers with forcerelay permission are not asked to feefilter#19198
Conversation
jonatack
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ACK fa473a0448817004a6271fbee926eb4a2a4258a4 modulo unusual test import
fa473a0 to
faccf0a
Compare
|
ACK faccf0a3b6f1 |
|
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers. 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. |
fac6ab1 to
fa8274d
Compare
fa8274d to
fa39586
Compare
fa39586 to
faaac4e
Compare
|
Force pushed a move-only to avoid a merge conflict (no rebase done). Should be trivial to re-ACK |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code review re-ACK faaac4e move-only change of two class member functions in test_framework.py since my last review per git range-diff 4b5c919 faccf0a faaac4e, idem since rebase per git diff fa39586 faaac4e. Edit: verified p2p_feefilter and p2p_permissions functional tests run green locally.
setup_nodes takes care of getting out of ibd
Instead, permission flags should be used. For example [email protected]
faaac4e to
fac63eb
Compare
|
Sorry, I had to rebase due to a silent merge conflict, now that |
|
re-ACK fac63eb move-only change of two class member functions in test_framework.py and rebases since my review @ faccf0a per |
…efilter Summary: Backport of [[bitcoin/bitcoin#19198 | core#19198]]. The signature of util.connect_nodes in our codebase differs from core, so this has been adapted accordingly. Test Plan: ninja check-extended Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, PiRK Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, PiRK Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D9546
No description provided.