feat: improving unit tests for Basic BLS and enforcing Basic BLS for Evo Nodes by knst · Pull Request #5463 · dashpay/dash

knst · 2023-06-28T08:23:50Z

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

What was done?

It splits from #5443

Adds extra unit tests for BLS basic scheme; enforces BLS basic for Evo Nodes in serialization/unserialization of CProRegTx, CProUpServTx.

How Has This Been Tested?

Run functional/unit tests + added new unit tests.

Breaking Changes

Serialization slightly changed, but it should be not breaking change

Checklist:

I have performed a self-review of my own code
I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
I have assigned this pull request to a milestone

ogabrielides

Could add the same check on CProRegTx.

ogabrielides

utACK

UdjinM6

we should really have similar checks in corresponding IsTriviallyValids too

ogabrielides

utACK

knst · 2023-06-30T07:57:57Z

we should really have similar checks in corresponding IsTriviallyValids too

We indeed need to have this validation, I added them in PR. Btw, there's no unit tests for it because:

 //TODO: Provide raw data for basic scheme as well

I created issue for it: #5471

## Issue being fixed or feature implemented It partially resolves issue #5471 Better unit tests are needed to validate changes in ProTx implementation such as this PR: #5463 ## What was done? - Invalid ProTx transactions are checked more strictly. The flag "tx is failed" is not enough now for test to succeed, but error code should matched with expected error. - Duplicated implementations of tests for "valid" and "invalid transaction" are changed to more general code. - Added extra log output with tx ID for easier debug - to see which exactly tx is failed in test - Supported more by 256 txes in one json file ## How Has This Been Tested? Run unit tests ## Breaking Changes N/A ## Checklist: - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests - [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone

github-actions · 2023-08-17T19:03:30Z

This pull request has conflicts, please rebase.

ogabrielides

ACK 👍

UdjinM6

utACK

ogabrielides · 2023-10-30T21:53:11Z

@PastaPastaPasta Reasons for keeping this one open?

PastaPastaPasta · 2023-10-31T14:29:23Z

It seems like we're not gonna merge this for v20 right? I think that's better but that's correct right?

knst · 2023-10-31T14:48:31Z

@knst knst modified the milestones: 20, 21 Oct 23, 2023 last week

It seems like we're not gonna merge this for v20 right? I think that's better but that's correct right?

I intentionally changed milestone to v21 - we have already RC; let's don't increase scope for v20.

UdjinM6 · 2023-10-31T15:09:36Z

Hmm... I would actually suggest to merge it into v20 - it streamlines the logic and extends unit tests a lot. Imo it a valuable one.

PastaPastaPasta

utACK for squash merge

PastaPastaPasta · 2023-11-08T16:27:05Z

 // unknown version, bail out early
 return;
 }
+


nit unrelated

## Issue being fixed or feature implemented It partially resolves issue dashpay/dash#5471 Better unit tests are needed to validate changes in ProTx implementation such as this PR: dashpay/dash#5463 ## What was done? - Invalid ProTx transactions are checked more strictly. The flag "tx is failed" is not enough now for test to succeed, but error code should matched with expected error. - Duplicated implementations of tests for "valid" and "invalid transaction" are changed to more general code. - Added extra log output with tx ID for easier debug - to see which exactly tx is failed in test - Supported more by 256 txes in one json file ## How Has This Been Tested? Run unit tests ## Breaking Changes N/A ## Checklist: - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests - [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone

knst requested review from PastaPastaPasta and ogabrielides June 28, 2023 08:23

knst added this to the 20 milestone Jun 28, 2023

knst mentioned this pull request Jun 28, 2023
refactor: deglobalization of bls_legacy_scheme 2/N #5443
Merged
5 tasks

ogabrielides suggested changes Jun 28, 2023
View reviewed changes

knst requested a review from ogabrielides June 28, 2023 10:05

ogabrielides previously approved these changes Jun 28, 2023
View reviewed changes

UdjinM6 requested changes Jun 28, 2023
View reviewed changes

Comment threadsrc/evo/providertx.h Outdated
Comment threadsrc/evo/providertx.h Outdated

knst dismissed ogabrielides’s stale review via a53fbe2June 30, 2023 07:47

ogabrielides previously approved these changes Jun 30, 2023
View reviewed changes

knst mentioned this pull request Jun 30, 2023
Improve unit tests evo_trivialvalidation#5471
Closed

knst requested a review from UdjinM6 June 30, 2023 07:58

UdjinM6 requested changes Jun 30, 2023
View reviewed changes

Comment threadsrc/evo/providertx.cpp Outdated
Comment threadsrc/evo/providertx.cpp Outdated
Comment threadsrc/evo/providertx.h Outdated
Comment threadsrc/evo/providertx.h Outdated
Comment threadsrc/evo/providertx.h Outdated
Comment threadsrc/evo/providertx.h Outdated

knst marked this pull request as draft June 30, 2023 11:03

knst mentioned this pull request Jul 28, 2023
feat: improve unit test "IsTriviallyValid" #5516
Merged
5 tasks

knst changed the title ~~fix: for HPMN should be used only bls basic, enforce that rule~~fix: for Evo MN should be used only bls basic, enforce that ruleJul 31, 2023

github-actionsBot added the needs rebase label Aug 17, 2023

knst added 2 commits September 18, 2023 19:07

fix: for Evo nodes should be used only bls basic, enforce that rule
fb844f7

feat: more tests with basic BLS for trivially valid EVO txes
11add29

knst dismissed ogabrielides’s stale review via 1ef2b6fSeptember 18, 2023 12:07

knst force-pushed the bls-deglobal-HPMN branch 2 times, most recently from 1ef2b6f to 11add29Compare September 18, 2023 12:07

github-actionsBot removed the needs rebase label Sep 18, 2023

knst changed the title ~~fix: for Evo MN should be used only bls basic, enforce that rule~~feat: improving unit tests for Basic BLS and enforcing Basic BLS for Evo NodesSep 18, 2023

knst marked this pull request as ready for review September 18, 2023 12:18

knst requested a review from UdjinM6 September 18, 2023 12:18

ogabrielides approved these changes Oct 1, 2023
View reviewed changes

UdjinM6 approved these changes Oct 4, 2023
View reviewed changes

knst modified the milestones: 20, 21 Oct 23, 2023

PastaPastaPasta approved these changes Nov 8, 2023
View reviewed changes

Comment threadsrc/evo/providertx.h
// unknown version, bail out early
return;
}

PastaPastaPastaNov 8, 2023
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nit unrelated

PastaPastaPasta modified the milestones: 21, 20 Nov 8, 2023

PastaPastaPasta merged commit 8022b44 into dashpay:developNov 8, 2023

Uh oh!

Conversation

knst commented Jun 28, 2023• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

What was done?

How Has This Been Tested?

Breaking Changes

Checklist:

Uh oh!

ogabrielides left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ogabrielides left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

UdjinM6 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ogabrielides left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

knst commented Jun 30, 2023

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actionsBot commented Aug 17, 2023

Uh oh!

ogabrielides left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

UdjinM6 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ogabrielides commented Oct 30, 2023

Uh oh!

PastaPastaPasta commented Oct 31, 2023

Uh oh!

knst commented Oct 31, 2023

Uh oh!

UdjinM6 commented Oct 31, 2023

Uh oh!

PastaPastaPasta left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

PastaPastaPastaNov 8, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

knst commented Jun 28, 2023•
edited
Loading