Conversation
053af46 to
920006f
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Concept ACK! Do you plan to add @meshcollider's suggestion in #14582 (comment)?
920006f to
e6547aa
Compare
|
@jonatack Thanks for review! Added a test to check the cap is not exceeded. [Edited: Will → Did] |
e6547aa to
452befa
Compare
|
Added test for when cap is exceeded. |
452befa to
198c443
Compare
|
Code review ACK 198c4434a2870c67e9b1b7b39800c10ec0404fb5 Edit: not sure about the CI failures, tests succeed for me locally. |
test/functional/wallet_groups.py
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Verified the tests all pass if -maxapsfee=0.00002719, and that they fail at this line if -maxapsfee=0.00002720 (8240 - 5520 = 2720):
AssertionError: [node 3] Expected messages "['Fee non-grouped = 5520, grouped = 8240, using non-grouped']"
Actual log
Fee non-grouped = 5520, grouped = 8240, using grouped
So if you want to test the limit, could set maxapsfee to 0.00002719.
47a00be to
e077f8c
Compare
|
|
e077f8c to
36cfd7f
Compare
…ups test 72ae20f tests: add sync_all to fix race condition in wallet groups test (Karl-Johan Alm) Pull request description: This most likely fixes #19749, the intermittent CI issues with wallet_groups. This fix is also included in #19743. Top commit has no ACKs. Tree-SHA512: dd6ef7f89829483e2278191c21fe0912b51fd2187c10a0fa158339c5ab9f22d93b733ae10f17ef25d8b64f44e596e66dba8d7db5c009343472f422ce4cd67d8f
36cfd7f to
19cf0d3
Compare
|
ACK 19cf0d3 per |
|
Weirdly, it's now giving a different message.
|
|
I get the same error locally ^ |
|
Rebase screw-up. Fixing. |
19cf0d3 to
b740b76
Compare
I think I mistakenly ran the test while still on commit 198c443. Re-reviewing. |
test/functional/wallet_groups.py
Outdated
| tx5 = self.nodes[3].getrawtransaction(txid5, True) | ||
| # tx5 should have 3 inputs (1.0, 1.0, 1.0) and 2 outputs | ||
| assert_equal(3, len(tx5["vin"])) | ||
| assert_equal(2, len(tx4["vout"])) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be tx5?
| assert_equal(2, len(tx4["vout"])) | |
| assert_equal(2, len(tx5["vout"])) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It should! Gah thanks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
functional test run ACK b740b76 modulo jon's comment (i.e. passes with his suggested change)
Btw Kalle, we edit out the '@' symbol tags in the OP because they get added to the merge commit and it spams users every time any other fork of the repo cherry-picks the PR :)
|
@kallewoof further to #19743 (comment), here is a proposed additional test commit if you feel like pulling it in: |
Co-authored-by: Jon Atack <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Samuel Dobson <[email protected]>
b740b76 to
7e31ea9
Compare
|
Squashed @jonatack's improvements (including tx4 → tx5 typo) into main commit (already co-authored-by tagged). |
|
ACK 7e31ea9 (if Travis acks too) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
re-ACK 7e31ea9
Test passes locally but I'll wait for Travis
…let groups test 72ae20f tests: add sync_all to fix race condition in wallet groups test (Karl-Johan Alm) Pull request description: This most likely fixes bitcoin#19749, the intermittent CI issues with wallet_groups. This fix is also included in bitcoin#19743. Top commit has no ACKs. Tree-SHA512: dd6ef7f89829483e2278191c21fe0912b51fd2187c10a0fa158339c5ab9f22d93b733ae10f17ef25d8b64f44e596e66dba8d7db5c009343472f422ce4cd67d8f
Summary: Co-authored-by: Jon Atack <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Samuel Dobson <[email protected]> This is a backport of [[bitcoin/bitcoin#19743 | core#19743]] Notes: - the Release notes are not relevant because they refer to a PR that we backported almost one year ago. - the formula for computing a defaulti fee in Bitcoin ABC is `1 sat/byte * tx_size`, with `tx_size ~ 148 * n_in + 33 * n_out + 10`. The tx sizes in the log messages checked in this PR are consistent with this formula (and different from the way Core computes the fees). Test Plan: `ninja all check-all` Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Subscribers: Fabien Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D10094
Addresses feedback from jonatack and meshcollider in #14582.