EXPERIMENTAL support for option_shutdown_anysegwit #4391
Merged
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
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
The spec doesn't say to do this, but it makes sense, otherwise they'll never be able to mutually close the channel. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
rustyrussell
force-pushed
the
guilt/opt_shutdown_anysegwit
branch
from
415be6f
to
ca88cd0
Compare
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
rustyrussell
force-pushed
the
guilt/opt_shutdown_anysegwit
branch
from
ca88cd0
to
bbe17fc
Compare
|
Code looks good, CI had a timeout, restarted 👍 ACK bbe17fc |
It's timing out, even though we disable valgrind. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
rustyrussell
force-pushed
the
guilt/opt_shutdown_anysegwit
branch
from
6752cb5
to
5905b53
Compare
Ouch, I must've missed that exception ( We are already testing without valgrind in another configuration, so there is no added value by just letting it run and pretend to be a valgrind test in this config. This test should just be marked as disabled under valgrind. |
cdecker
added a commit
to cdecker/lightning
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 26, 2021
Reviewing ElementsProject#4391 I noticed that we have a sneaky way of opting out of valgrind using the `slow_test` marker. I consider this dangerous as it causes a false sense of security ("this test is being run under valgrind" when really it isn't), as exemplified by some of the tests even branching on whether we run under valgrind or not. This is my attempt of making tests explicitly opt out of valgrind testing via the `@unittest.skipIf` decorator, which is more honest, as it doesn't run the test in a tweaked configuration, and reports a skipped test. The tests are all already being run on CI without valgrind, so we don't lose any coverage by this, but are more respectful of the resources we have on CI.
cdecker
added a commit
to cdecker/lightning
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 26, 2021
Reviewing ElementsProject#4391 I noticed that we have a sneaky way of opting out of valgrind using the `slow_test` marker. I consider this dangerous as it causes a false sense of security ("this test is being run under valgrind" when really it isn't), as exemplified by some of the tests even branching on whether we run under valgrind or not. This is my attempt of making tests explicitly opt out of valgrind testing via the `@unittest.skipIf` decorator, which is more honest, as it doesn't run the test in a tweaked configuration, and reports a skipped test. The tests are all already being run on CI without valgrind, so we don't lose any coverage by this, but are more respectful of the resources we have on CI.
|
Ack 5905b53 (Since the slow_test changes are a separate issue) |
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.
See lightning/bolts#672
Changelog-None: Experimental only