Add multi-sig recovery tests. stat-291 #1466
Conversation
| @@ -14,13 +14,26 @@ BOOST_FIXTURE_TEST_CASE( missing_sigs, tester ) { try { | |||
| produce_block(); | |||
|
|
|||
| BOOST_REQUIRE_THROW( push_reqauth( N(alice), {permission_level{N(alice), config::active_name}}, {} ), tx_missing_sigs ); | |||
| auto trace = push_reqauth(N(alice), {permission_level{N(alice), config::active_name}}, { get_private_key(N(alice), "active") } ); | |||
| auto trace = push_reqauth(N(alice), "owner"); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
while more concise, this does change the semantics by signing with the "owner" key/permission instead of the active.
We should probably just leave the exploded version that was in place before
|
|
||
| produce_block(); | ||
| produce_block(); |
| @@ -179,6 +179,16 @@ namespace eosio { namespace testing { | |||
| return push_transaction( trx ); | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| transaction_trace base_tester::push_reqauth(account_name from, string role, bool multi_sig) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems to be an "up-port" of the method call that used to only exist for recovery tests.
In the context of recovery tests using the "owner" permission level makes sense however, in most other cases that seems to be a mis-use as the concept of "owner" is that it is very rarely used.
It seems this was done to make the missing_multi_sigs tests case more concise but as that could be done with the "Active" permission level and the push_reqauth that already existed with a few more keys strokes maybe we should keep this "owner" bomb in the recover tester?
|
@cj-oci please address any of the comments in a new PR if you agree with them. |
Add multi-sig recovery test.
Enable misc_tests.