Make test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success robust - #1984

Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
TheBlueMatt:2023-01-test-robust
Jan 26, 2023
Merged

Make test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success robust#1984
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
TheBlueMatt:2023-01-test-robust

Conversation

@TheBlueMatt

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt commented Jan 25, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success currently fails if the "wrong" HTLC is picked to be claimed. Given the HTLCs are identical, there's no way to figure out which we should claim. The test instead relies on a magic value - the first one is the right one....unless we change our CSPRNG implementation. When we try to do so, the test randomly fails.

Here we change one HTLC to a lower amount so we can figure out which transaction to broadcast to make the test robust against CSPRNG changes.

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt mentioned this pull request Jan 25, 2023
Merged
@tnull
tnull self-requested a review January 25, 2023 03:14
tnull
tnull reviewed Jan 25, 2023
View reviewed changes

@tnulltnull left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One nit, otherwise LGTM.

CI failure seems unrelated.

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs Outdated
wpaulino
wpaulino reviewed Jan 25, 2023
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs Outdated
@wpaulino

wpaulino commented Jan 26, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

LGTM after squash

@codecov-commenter

codecov-commenter commented Jan 26, 2023•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

Base: 90.79% // Head: 91.06% // Increases project coverage by +0.27% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (f4bb7c9) compared to base (8bb6614).
Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

❗ Current head f4bb7c9 differs from pull request most recent head 7dcbf2c. Consider uploading reports for the commit 7dcbf2c to get more accurate results

📣 This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more

Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1984 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 90.79% 91.06% +0.27% 
==========================================
Files 98 99 +1 Lines 51673 55379 +3706 Branches 51673 55379 +3706 ==========================================
+ Hits 46915 50431 +3516 - Misses 4758 4948 +190
Impacted FilesCoverage Δ
lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs97.07% <100.00%> (+0.13%)⬆️
lightning/src/util/events.rs28.73% <0.00%> (-1.78%)⬇️
lightning/src/util/indexed_map.rs96.29% <0.00%> (ø)
lightning/src/ln/onion_route_tests.rs98.03% <0.00%> (+0.40%)⬆️
lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs95.39% <0.00%> (+1.04%)⬆️
lightning/src/routing/router.rs92.38% <0.00%> (+1.47%)⬆️
lightning/src/routing/gossip.rs94.06% <0.00%> (+1.91%)⬆️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs90.76% <0.00%> (+3.55%)⬆️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@TheBlueMatt
Make test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success robust
7dcbf2c
`test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success` currently
fails if the "wrong" HTLC is picked to be claimed. Given the HTLCs
are identical, there's no way to figure out which we should claim.
The test instead relies on a magic value - the first one is the
right one....unless we change our CSPRNG implementation. When we
try to do so, the test randomly fails.
Here we change one HTLC to a lower amount so we can figure out
which transaction to broadcast to make the test robust against
CSPRNG changes.
@TheBlueMatt

TheBlueMatt commented Jan 26, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
CollaboratorAuthor

Squashed.

@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt merged commit 8bc3428 into lightningdevkit:mainJan 26, 2023
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt mentioned this pull request Jan 26, 2023
Merged
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@tnulltnulltnull approved these changes
@wpaulinowpaulinowpaulino approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@TheBlueMatt@wpaulino@codecov-commenter@tnull
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Add copy buttons to all 
 blocks
(function() {
function addCopyButtons() {
document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {
if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;
codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');
var btn = document.createElement('button');
btn.textContent = 'Copy';
btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';
btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };
btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };
btn.onclick = function() {
navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {
btn.textContent = 'Copied!';
setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);
});
};
codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';
codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);
});
}
addCopyButtons();
// Re-run on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '

Skip to content
Make test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success robust - #1984
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2023-01-test-robust
Jan 26, 2023
Merged
Make test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success robust#1984
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2023-01-test-robust
Conversation
@TheBlueMatt
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
commented
Jan 25, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success currently fails if the "wrong" HTLC is picked to be claimed. Given the HTLCs are identical, there's no way to figure out which we should claim. The test instead relies on a magic value - the first one is the right one....unless we change our CSPRNG implementation. When we try to do so, the test randomly fails.
Here we change one HTLC to a lower amount so we can figure out which transaction to broadcast to make the test robust against CSPRNG changes.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Jan 25, 2023
 Merged

@tnull
tnull
self-requested a review
January 25, 2023 03:14
tnull
tnull
reviewed
Jan 25, 2023
View reviewed changes
@tnulltnull
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One nit, otherwise LGTM.
CI failure seems unrelated.
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated

wpaulino
wpaulino
reviewed
Jan 25, 2023
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated

@wpaulino
wpaulino
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
LGTM after squash
@codecov-commenter
codecov-commenter
commented
Jan 26, 2023•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
Base: 90.79% // Head: 91.06% // Increases project coverage by +0.27% 🎉
Coverage data is based on head (f4bb7c9) compared to base (8bb6614).

Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.
❗ Current head f4bb7c9 differs from pull request most recent head 7dcbf2c. Consider uploading reports for the commit 7dcbf2c to get more accurate results
📣 This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1984 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 90.79% 91.06% +0.27% 
==========================================
Files 98 99 +1 Lines 51673 55379 +3706 Branches 51673 55379 +3706 ==========================================
+ Hits 46915 50431 +3516 - Misses 4758 4948 +190 
Impacted FilesCoverage Δ
lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs97.07% <100.00%> (+0.13%)⬆️
lightning/src/util/events.rs28.73% <0.00%> (-1.78%)⬇️
lightning/src/util/indexed_map.rs96.29% <0.00%> (ø)
lightning/src/ln/onion_route_tests.rs98.03% <0.00%> (+0.40%)⬆️
lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs95.39% <0.00%> (+1.04%)⬆️
lightning/src/routing/router.rs92.38% <0.00%> (+1.47%)⬆️
lightning/src/routing/gossip.rs94.06% <0.00%> (+1.91%)⬆️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs90.76% <0.00%> (+3.55%)⬆️
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.
☔ View full report at Codecov.

📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.
@TheBlueMatt
Make test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success robust
7dcbf2c
`test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success` currently
fails if the "wrong" HTLC is picked to be claimed. Given the HTLCs
are identical, there's no way to figure out which we should claim.
The test instead relies on a magic value - the first one is the
right one....unless we change our CSPRNG implementation. When we
try to do so, the test randomly fails.
Here we change one HTLC to a lower amount so we can figure out
which transaction to broadcast to make the test robust against
CSPRNG changes.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

CollaboratorAuthor
Squashed.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 8bc3428
into
lightningdevkit:mainJan 26, 2023
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Jan 26, 2023
 Merged

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@tnulltnulltnull approved these changes
@wpaulinowpaulinowpaulino approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@TheBlueMatt@wpaulino@codecov-commenter@tnull

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode
(function() {
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '
.markdown-body {
color-scheme: dark light;
}
.markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }
.markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }
.markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }
.markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }
.markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }
.markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }
';
document.head.appendChild(style);
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
Make test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success robust - #1984
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2023-01-test-robust
Jan 26, 2023
Merged
Make test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success robust#1984
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2023-01-test-robust
Conversation
@TheBlueMatt
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
commented
Jan 25, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success currently fails if the "wrong" HTLC is picked to be claimed. Given the HTLCs are identical, there's no way to figure out which we should claim. The test instead relies on a magic value - the first one is the right one....unless we change our CSPRNG implementation. When we try to do so, the test randomly fails.
Here we change one HTLC to a lower amount so we can figure out which transaction to broadcast to make the test robust against CSPRNG changes.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Jan 25, 2023
 Merged

@tnull
tnull
self-requested a review
January 25, 2023 03:14
tnull
tnull
reviewed
Jan 25, 2023
View reviewed changes
@tnulltnull
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One nit, otherwise LGTM.
CI failure seems unrelated.
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated

wpaulino
wpaulino
reviewed
Jan 25, 2023
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated

@wpaulino
wpaulino
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
LGTM after squash
@codecov-commenter
codecov-commenter
commented
Jan 26, 2023•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
Base: 90.79% // Head: 91.06% // Increases project coverage by +0.27% 🎉
Coverage data is based on head (f4bb7c9) compared to base (8bb6614).

Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.
❗ Current head f4bb7c9 differs from pull request most recent head 7dcbf2c. Consider uploading reports for the commit 7dcbf2c to get more accurate results
📣 This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1984 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 90.79% 91.06% +0.27% 
==========================================
Files 98 99 +1 Lines 51673 55379 +3706 Branches 51673 55379 +3706 ==========================================
+ Hits 46915 50431 +3516 - Misses 4758 4948 +190 
Impacted FilesCoverage Δ
lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs97.07% <100.00%> (+0.13%)⬆️
lightning/src/util/events.rs28.73% <0.00%> (-1.78%)⬇️
lightning/src/util/indexed_map.rs96.29% <0.00%> (ø)
lightning/src/ln/onion_route_tests.rs98.03% <0.00%> (+0.40%)⬆️
lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs95.39% <0.00%> (+1.04%)⬆️
lightning/src/routing/router.rs92.38% <0.00%> (+1.47%)⬆️
lightning/src/routing/gossip.rs94.06% <0.00%> (+1.91%)⬆️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs90.76% <0.00%> (+3.55%)⬆️
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.
☔ View full report at Codecov.

📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.
@TheBlueMatt
Make test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success robust
7dcbf2c
`test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success` currently
fails if the "wrong" HTLC is picked to be claimed. Given the HTLCs
are identical, there's no way to figure out which we should claim.
The test instead relies on a magic value - the first one is the
right one....unless we change our CSPRNG implementation. When we
try to do so, the test randomly fails.
Here we change one HTLC to a lower amount so we can figure out
which transaction to broadcast to make the test robust against
CSPRNG changes.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

CollaboratorAuthor
Squashed.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 8bc3428
into
lightningdevkit:mainJan 26, 2023
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Jan 26, 2023
 Merged

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@tnulltnulltnull approved these changes
@wpaulinowpaulinowpaulino approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@TheBlueMatt@wpaulino@codecov-commenter@tnull

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer
(function() {
var ref = document.referrer;
var terms = [];
if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {
var url = new URL(ref);
var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');
if (q) {
terms = q.split(/\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });
}
}
if (terms.length === 0) return;
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';
document.head.appendChild(style);
function highlight(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node
var text = node.textContent;
var found = false;
terms.forEach(function(term) {
var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\') + ')', 'gi');
if (regex.test(text)) {
found = true;
var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
var parts = text.split(regex);
parts.forEach(function(part, i) {
if (i % 2 === 0) {
frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));
} else {
var span = document.createElement('span');
span.className = 'userscript-highlight';
span.textContent = part;
frag.appendChild(span);
}
});
node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);
}
});
} else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element
var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];
if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {
Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);
}
}
}
highlight(document.body);
// Re-highlight on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
Make test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success robust - #1984
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2023-01-test-robust
Jan 26, 2023
Merged
Make test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success robust#1984
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2023-01-test-robust
Conversation
@TheBlueMatt
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
commented
Jan 25, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success currently fails if the "wrong" HTLC is picked to be claimed. Given the HTLCs are identical, there's no way to figure out which we should claim. The test instead relies on a magic value - the first one is the right one....unless we change our CSPRNG implementation. When we try to do so, the test randomly fails.
Here we change one HTLC to a lower amount so we can figure out which transaction to broadcast to make the test robust against CSPRNG changes.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Jan 25, 2023
 Merged

@tnull
tnull
self-requested a review
January 25, 2023 03:14
tnull
tnull
reviewed
Jan 25, 2023
View reviewed changes
@tnulltnull
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One nit, otherwise LGTM.
CI failure seems unrelated.
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated

wpaulino
wpaulino
reviewed
Jan 25, 2023
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated

@wpaulino
wpaulino
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
LGTM after squash
@codecov-commenter
codecov-commenter
commented
Jan 26, 2023•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
Base: 90.79% // Head: 91.06% // Increases project coverage by +0.27% 🎉
Coverage data is based on head (f4bb7c9) compared to base (8bb6614).

Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.
❗ Current head f4bb7c9 differs from pull request most recent head 7dcbf2c. Consider uploading reports for the commit 7dcbf2c to get more accurate results
📣 This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1984 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 90.79% 91.06% +0.27% 
==========================================
Files 98 99 +1 Lines 51673 55379 +3706 Branches 51673 55379 +3706 ==========================================
+ Hits 46915 50431 +3516 - Misses 4758 4948 +190 
Impacted FilesCoverage Δ
lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs97.07% <100.00%> (+0.13%)⬆️
lightning/src/util/events.rs28.73% <0.00%> (-1.78%)⬇️
lightning/src/util/indexed_map.rs96.29% <0.00%> (ø)
lightning/src/ln/onion_route_tests.rs98.03% <0.00%> (+0.40%)⬆️
lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs95.39% <0.00%> (+1.04%)⬆️
lightning/src/routing/router.rs92.38% <0.00%> (+1.47%)⬆️
lightning/src/routing/gossip.rs94.06% <0.00%> (+1.91%)⬆️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs90.76% <0.00%> (+3.55%)⬆️
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.
☔ View full report at Codecov.

📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.
@TheBlueMatt
Make test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success robust
7dcbf2c
`test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success` currently
fails if the "wrong" HTLC is picked to be claimed. Given the HTLCs
are identical, there's no way to figure out which we should claim.
The test instead relies on a magic value - the first one is the
right one....unless we change our CSPRNG implementation. When we
try to do so, the test randomly fails.
Here we change one HTLC to a lower amount so we can figure out
which transaction to broadcast to make the test robust against
CSPRNG changes.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

CollaboratorAuthor
Squashed.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 8bc3428
into
lightningdevkit:mainJan 26, 2023
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Jan 26, 2023
 Merged

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@tnulltnulltnull approved these changes
@wpaulinowpaulinowpaulino approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@TheBlueMatt@wpaulino@codecov-commenter@tnull

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page
(function() {
var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',
'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',
'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];
function cleanUrl(url) {
try {
var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);
var changed = false;
trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {
if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {
u.searchParams.delete(p);
changed = true;
}
});
return changed ? u.toString() : url;
} catch (e) {
return url;
}
}
function cleanLinks() {
document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
cleanLinks();
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1) {
if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();
node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '

Skip to content
Make test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success robust - #1984
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2023-01-test-robust
Jan 26, 2023
Merged
Make test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success robust#1984
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2023-01-test-robust
Conversation
@TheBlueMatt
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
commented
Jan 25, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success currently fails if the "wrong" HTLC is picked to be claimed. Given the HTLCs are identical, there's no way to figure out which we should claim. The test instead relies on a magic value - the first one is the right one....unless we change our CSPRNG implementation. When we try to do so, the test randomly fails.
Here we change one HTLC to a lower amount so we can figure out which transaction to broadcast to make the test robust against CSPRNG changes.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Jan 25, 2023
 Merged

@tnull
tnull
self-requested a review
January 25, 2023 03:14
tnull
tnull
reviewed
Jan 25, 2023
View reviewed changes
@tnulltnull
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One nit, otherwise LGTM.
CI failure seems unrelated.
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated

wpaulino
wpaulino
reviewed
Jan 25, 2023
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated

@wpaulino
wpaulino
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
LGTM after squash
@codecov-commenter
codecov-commenter
commented
Jan 26, 2023•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
Base: 90.79% // Head: 91.06% // Increases project coverage by +0.27% 🎉
Coverage data is based on head (f4bb7c9) compared to base (8bb6614).

Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.
❗ Current head f4bb7c9 differs from pull request most recent head 7dcbf2c. Consider uploading reports for the commit 7dcbf2c to get more accurate results
📣 This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1984 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 90.79% 91.06% +0.27% 
==========================================
Files 98 99 +1 Lines 51673 55379 +3706 Branches 51673 55379 +3706 ==========================================
+ Hits 46915 50431 +3516 - Misses 4758 4948 +190 
Impacted FilesCoverage Δ
lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs97.07% <100.00%> (+0.13%)⬆️
lightning/src/util/events.rs28.73% <0.00%> (-1.78%)⬇️
lightning/src/util/indexed_map.rs96.29% <0.00%> (ø)
lightning/src/ln/onion_route_tests.rs98.03% <0.00%> (+0.40%)⬆️
lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs95.39% <0.00%> (+1.04%)⬆️
lightning/src/routing/router.rs92.38% <0.00%> (+1.47%)⬆️
lightning/src/routing/gossip.rs94.06% <0.00%> (+1.91%)⬆️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs90.76% <0.00%> (+3.55%)⬆️
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.
☔ View full report at Codecov.

📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.
@TheBlueMatt
Make test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success robust
7dcbf2c
`test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success` currently
fails if the "wrong" HTLC is picked to be claimed. Given the HTLCs
are identical, there's no way to figure out which we should claim.
The test instead relies on a magic value - the first one is the
right one....unless we change our CSPRNG implementation. When we
try to do so, the test randomly fails.
Here we change one HTLC to a lower amount so we can figure out
which transaction to broadcast to make the test robust against
CSPRNG changes.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

CollaboratorAuthor
Squashed.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 8bc3428
into
lightningdevkit:mainJan 26, 2023
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Jan 26, 2023
 Merged

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@tnulltnulltnull approved these changes
@wpaulinowpaulinowpaulino approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@TheBlueMatt@wpaulino@codecov-commenter@tnull

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube
(function() {
function tryTheater() {
var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label="Theater mode"], ytd-player #player button[title="Theater mode"]');
if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {
btn.click();
}
}
// Try immediately
tryTheater();
// Try after navigation (SPA)
var lastUrl = location.href;
setInterval(function() {
if (location.href !== lastUrl) {
lastUrl = location.href;
setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);
}
}, 1000);
// Also try on player load
var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
Make test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success robust - #1984
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2023-01-test-robust
Jan 26, 2023
Merged
Make test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success robust#1984
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2023-01-test-robust
Conversation
@TheBlueMatt
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
commented
Jan 25, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success currently fails if the "wrong" HTLC is picked to be claimed. Given the HTLCs are identical, there's no way to figure out which we should claim. The test instead relies on a magic value - the first one is the right one....unless we change our CSPRNG implementation. When we try to do so, the test randomly fails.
Here we change one HTLC to a lower amount so we can figure out which transaction to broadcast to make the test robust against CSPRNG changes.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Jan 25, 2023
 Merged

@tnull
tnull
self-requested a review
January 25, 2023 03:14
tnull
tnull
reviewed
Jan 25, 2023
View reviewed changes
@tnulltnull
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One nit, otherwise LGTM.
CI failure seems unrelated.
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated

wpaulino
wpaulino
reviewed
Jan 25, 2023
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated

@wpaulino
wpaulino
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
LGTM after squash
@codecov-commenter
codecov-commenter
commented
Jan 26, 2023•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
Base: 90.79% // Head: 91.06% // Increases project coverage by +0.27% 🎉
Coverage data is based on head (f4bb7c9) compared to base (8bb6614).

Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.
❗ Current head f4bb7c9 differs from pull request most recent head 7dcbf2c. Consider uploading reports for the commit 7dcbf2c to get more accurate results
📣 This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1984 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 90.79% 91.06% +0.27% 
==========================================
Files 98 99 +1 Lines 51673 55379 +3706 Branches 51673 55379 +3706 ==========================================
+ Hits 46915 50431 +3516 - Misses 4758 4948 +190 
Impacted FilesCoverage Δ
lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs97.07% <100.00%> (+0.13%)⬆️
lightning/src/util/events.rs28.73% <0.00%> (-1.78%)⬇️
lightning/src/util/indexed_map.rs96.29% <0.00%> (ø)
lightning/src/ln/onion_route_tests.rs98.03% <0.00%> (+0.40%)⬆️
lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs95.39% <0.00%> (+1.04%)⬆️
lightning/src/routing/router.rs92.38% <0.00%> (+1.47%)⬆️
lightning/src/routing/gossip.rs94.06% <0.00%> (+1.91%)⬆️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs90.76% <0.00%> (+3.55%)⬆️
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.
☔ View full report at Codecov.

📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.
@TheBlueMatt
Make test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success robust
7dcbf2c
`test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success` currently
fails if the "wrong" HTLC is picked to be claimed. Given the HTLCs
are identical, there's no way to figure out which we should claim.
The test instead relies on a magic value - the first one is the
right one....unless we change our CSPRNG implementation. When we
try to do so, the test randomly fails.
Here we change one HTLC to a lower amount so we can figure out
which transaction to broadcast to make the test robust against
CSPRNG changes.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

CollaboratorAuthor
Squashed.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 8bc3428
into
lightningdevkit:mainJan 26, 2023
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Jan 26, 2023
 Merged

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@tnulltnulltnull approved these changes
@wpaulinowpaulinowpaulino approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@TheBlueMatt@wpaulino@codecov-commenter@tnull

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content
(function() {
function unstick() {
document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role="banner"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*="position: fixed"], [style*="position:sticky"]').forEach(function(el) {
if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {
el.style.position = 'static';
el.style.top = 'auto';
el.style.zIndex = 'auto';
}
});
}
unstick();
var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
Make test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success robust - #1984
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2023-01-test-robust
Jan 26, 2023
Merged
Make test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success robust#1984
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2023-01-test-robust
Conversation
@TheBlueMatt
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
commented
Jan 25, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success currently fails if the "wrong" HTLC is picked to be claimed. Given the HTLCs are identical, there's no way to figure out which we should claim. The test instead relies on a magic value - the first one is the right one....unless we change our CSPRNG implementation. When we try to do so, the test randomly fails.
Here we change one HTLC to a lower amount so we can figure out which transaction to broadcast to make the test robust against CSPRNG changes.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Jan 25, 2023
 Merged

@tnull
tnull
self-requested a review
January 25, 2023 03:14
tnull
tnull
reviewed
Jan 25, 2023
View reviewed changes
@tnulltnull
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One nit, otherwise LGTM.
CI failure seems unrelated.
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated

wpaulino
wpaulino
reviewed
Jan 25, 2023
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated

@wpaulino
wpaulino
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
LGTM after squash
@codecov-commenter
codecov-commenter
commented
Jan 26, 2023•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
Base: 90.79% // Head: 91.06% // Increases project coverage by +0.27% 🎉
Coverage data is based on head (f4bb7c9) compared to base (8bb6614).

Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.
❗ Current head f4bb7c9 differs from pull request most recent head 7dcbf2c. Consider uploading reports for the commit 7dcbf2c to get more accurate results
📣 This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1984 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 90.79% 91.06% +0.27% 
==========================================
Files 98 99 +1 Lines 51673 55379 +3706 Branches 51673 55379 +3706 ==========================================
+ Hits 46915 50431 +3516 - Misses 4758 4948 +190 
Impacted FilesCoverage Δ
lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs97.07% <100.00%> (+0.13%)⬆️
lightning/src/util/events.rs28.73% <0.00%> (-1.78%)⬇️
lightning/src/util/indexed_map.rs96.29% <0.00%> (ø)
lightning/src/ln/onion_route_tests.rs98.03% <0.00%> (+0.40%)⬆️
lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs95.39% <0.00%> (+1.04%)⬆️
lightning/src/routing/router.rs92.38% <0.00%> (+1.47%)⬆️
lightning/src/routing/gossip.rs94.06% <0.00%> (+1.91%)⬆️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs90.76% <0.00%> (+3.55%)⬆️
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.
☔ View full report at Codecov.

📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.
@TheBlueMatt
Make test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success robust
7dcbf2c
`test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success` currently
fails if the "wrong" HTLC is picked to be claimed. Given the HTLCs
are identical, there's no way to figure out which we should claim.
The test instead relies on a magic value - the first one is the
right one....unless we change our CSPRNG implementation. When we
try to do so, the test randomly fails.
Here we change one HTLC to a lower amount so we can figure out
which transaction to broadcast to make the test robust against
CSPRNG changes.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

CollaboratorAuthor
Squashed.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 8bc3428
into
lightningdevkit:mainJan 26, 2023
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Jan 26, 2023
 Merged

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@tnulltnulltnull approved these changes
@wpaulinowpaulinowpaulino approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@TheBlueMatt@wpaulino@codecov-commenter@tnull

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site
(function() {
var enabled = true;
function applyDarkMode() {
if (!enabled) return;
// Create style element if it doesn't exist
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (!style) {
style = document.createElement('style');
style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';
document.head.appendChild(style);
}
// Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video
style.textContent = '
/* Invert everything except media */
html {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #1a1a2e !important;
}
/* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */
img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*="background-image"] {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
}
/* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */
.no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,
[data-theme="light"], [data-theme="light"],
.ace_editor, .ace_editor *,
.CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,
.monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,
.markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,
.highlight, .highlight *,
pre code, pre code * {
filter: none !important;
}
/* Fix common UI elements */
.modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #2d2d44 !important;
border-color: #444 !important;
}
/* Scrollbars */
::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }
/* Selection */
::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
';
}
function removeDarkMode() {
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (style) style.remove();
}
// Toggle with Alt+Shift+D
document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {
if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {
e.preventDefault();
enabled = !enabled;
if (enabled) {
applyDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');
} else {
removeDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');
}
}
});
// Apply on load
applyDarkMode();
// Re-apply on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {
applyDarkMode();
}
});
observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();

Skip to content
Make test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success robust - #1984
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2023-01-test-robust
Jan 26, 2023
Merged
Make test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success robust#1984
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2023-01-test-robust
Conversation
@TheBlueMatt
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
commented
Jan 25, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success currently fails if the "wrong" HTLC is picked to be claimed. Given the HTLCs are identical, there's no way to figure out which we should claim. The test instead relies on a magic value - the first one is the right one....unless we change our CSPRNG implementation. When we try to do so, the test randomly fails.
Here we change one HTLC to a lower amount so we can figure out which transaction to broadcast to make the test robust against CSPRNG changes.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Jan 25, 2023
 Merged

@tnull
tnull
self-requested a review
January 25, 2023 03:14
tnull
tnull
reviewed
Jan 25, 2023
View reviewed changes
@tnulltnull
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One nit, otherwise LGTM.
CI failure seems unrelated.
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated

wpaulino
wpaulino
reviewed
Jan 25, 2023
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated

@wpaulino
wpaulino
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
LGTM after squash
@codecov-commenter
codecov-commenter
commented
Jan 26, 2023•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
Base: 90.79% // Head: 91.06% // Increases project coverage by +0.27% 🎉
Coverage data is based on head (f4bb7c9) compared to base (8bb6614).

Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.
❗ Current head f4bb7c9 differs from pull request most recent head 7dcbf2c. Consider uploading reports for the commit 7dcbf2c to get more accurate results
📣 This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1984 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 90.79% 91.06% +0.27% 
==========================================
Files 98 99 +1 Lines 51673 55379 +3706 Branches 51673 55379 +3706 ==========================================
+ Hits 46915 50431 +3516 - Misses 4758 4948 +190 
Impacted FilesCoverage Δ
lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs97.07% <100.00%> (+0.13%)⬆️
lightning/src/util/events.rs28.73% <0.00%> (-1.78%)⬇️
lightning/src/util/indexed_map.rs96.29% <0.00%> (ø)
lightning/src/ln/onion_route_tests.rs98.03% <0.00%> (+0.40%)⬆️
lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs95.39% <0.00%> (+1.04%)⬆️
lightning/src/routing/router.rs92.38% <0.00%> (+1.47%)⬆️
lightning/src/routing/gossip.rs94.06% <0.00%> (+1.91%)⬆️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs90.76% <0.00%> (+3.55%)⬆️
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.
☔ View full report at Codecov.

📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.
@TheBlueMatt
Make test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success robust
7dcbf2c
`test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success` currently
fails if the "wrong" HTLC is picked to be claimed. Given the HTLCs
are identical, there's no way to figure out which we should claim.
The test instead relies on a magic value - the first one is the
right one....unless we change our CSPRNG implementation. When we
try to do so, the test randomly fails.
Here we change one HTLC to a lower amount so we can figure out
which transaction to broadcast to make the test robust against
CSPRNG changes.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

CollaboratorAuthor
Squashed.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 8bc3428
into
lightningdevkit:mainJan 26, 2023
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Jan 26, 2023
 Merged

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@tnulltnulltnull approved these changes
@wpaulinowpaulinowpaulino approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@TheBlueMatt@wpaulino@codecov-commenter@tnull