misc: 🍱 add a mock consensus test exercising penumbra_wallet::plan::sweep()
#4605
Conversation
This file contains 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
these are helper functions that assist the public `sweep()` function, invoked by pcli's `tx sweep` subcommand.
the errors one gets if running in a standard `tokio::test` runtime are a bit cryptic. add a comment remarking on this, as a helpful breadcrumb.
this will help us write a test case that is resilient to future changes in the precise behavior of the sweeping functionality.
cratelyn
added
A-client
|
test flaked, see #4517. i'll re-run tests when i'm back at the computer. |
cronokirby
approved these changes
Jun 14, 2024
This was referenced Jun 24, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
💭 describe your changes
this introduces a mock consensus test, showing that the
tx sweepcommandworks as expected for a simple case, when a wallet contains
SWEEP_COUNT + 1notes.
#4601 more directly tracks the issue of the
note commitment missingerror,which i believe affects more than just sweeping. similarly, #4586 and #4578
fixed the issue of seeing
not a valid SCT rooterrors, which could also occurwhen sweeping notes, because it is effectively performing the same action of
performing many transactions in a hot loop, sending funds to oneself.
while this might not "fix" #4574 strictly speaking, this does introduce some
foundational test coverage so that we can write more robust regression tests
against the core logic responsible for sweep planning.
🔖 issue ticket number and link
✅ checklist before requesting a review
if this code contains consensus-breaking changes, i have added the
"consensus-breaking" label. otherwise, i declare my belief that there are not
consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: