Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
[CI] Fixed esplora blockchain tests in CI - #430
Conversation
92c3ef4 to
36f0c4dCompare
notmandatory
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good, also checkout related tcharding#2. We should be able to test esplora with ureq and reqwest. If you can incorporate into this PR I'll close the one I did.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
36f0c4d to
b6e3cc7CompareUpdated with suggested refactors and async changes. Rearranged the commits. Moved out |
notmandatory
commented
Aug 31, 2021
ACK 2caa590 |
codecov-commenter
commented
Aug 31, 2021
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #430 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 73.07% 72.62% -0.46%
==========================================
Files 34 34 Lines 7399 7419 +20 ==========================================
- Hits 5407 5388 -19 - Misses 1992 2031 +39
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
| - name: esplora | ||
| features: test-esplora,use-esplora-reqwest | ||
| - name: esplora | ||
| features: test-esplora,use-esplora-ureq |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This line has trailing whitespace.
| run: cargo test --features test-${{ matrix.blockchain.name }} ${{ matrix.blockchain.name }}::bdk_blockchain_tests | ||
| run: cargo test --no-default-features --features ${{ matrix.blockchain.features }} ${{ matrix.blockchain.name }}::bdk_blockchain_tests | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This line has trailing whitespace.
| # Platform-specific dependencies | ||
| [target.'cfg(not(target_arch = "wasm32"))'.dependencies] | ||
| tokio = { version = "1", features = ["rt"] } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this PR re-introduces a hard dependency on tokio just so we can test esplora-reqwest feature, that seems like a bad choice to me. A user of bdk that wishes to use reqwest will always be using async, why do we want to introduce a hard dependency on tokio just to be able to test in a manner that the library will not be used?
The esplora-reqwest feature can be tested coupled with either async-interface feature or using WASM target.
| fn get_tx(&self, txid: &Txid) -> Result<Option<Transaction>, Error> { | ||
| Ok(self.url_client._get_tx(txid).await?) | ||
| Ok(await_or_block!(self.url_client._get_tx(txid))?) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I do not like this usage of await_or_block because there is no reason to use reqwest in a blocking environment, we have ureq for that.
tcharding
commented
Aug 31, 2021
All my comments are resolved by the implementation in #433, please see if you have any concerns with that approach @rajarshimaitra. Thanks. |
notmandatory
commented
Sep 10, 2021
@tcharding@LLFourn as @rajarshimaitra noted on #433 even if this PR isn't the final solution it will unblock some other work (bitcoindevkit/bdk-cli#41 and #429). Also it's more of a roll back to how the |
tcharding
commented
Sep 12, 2021
Don't stop the progress on my account :) |
- Changed to local bdk-macro - Added back tokio - Update esplora-reqwest and test-esplora feature guards
- add back await_or_block! to bdk-macros - use await_or_block! in reqwest tests
- Fix esplora module level feature flag - Move esplora blockchain tests to module, to cover for both variants
9967045 to
10b53a5Compare
Description
Fixes#431 and esplora blockchain test skips in CI
Notes to the reviewers
Checklists
All Submissions:
cargo fmtandcargo clippybefore committingBugfixes: