Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Extend the integration tests to test failure conditions #317

Closed
sanket1729 opened this issue Mar 21, 2022 · 4 comments
Closed

Extend the integration tests to test failure conditions #317

sanket1729 opened this issue Mar 21, 2022 · 4 comments
Labels
good first issue Good for newcomers

Comments

@sanket1729
Copy link
Member

In #309, we added integration tests to check descriptor satisfaction logic. We should extend the test_desc_satisfy

pub fn test_desc_satisfy(cl: &Client, testdata: &TestData, desc: &str) -> Witness {
.
to return result. And test misc failure test cases for descriptors.

  • Add tests for testing each fragment of miniscript from bitcoin reference: bitcoin.sipa.be/miniscript. This can be a bit challenging but is a good resource to get started and understand miniscript hands-on.
  • Add tests for failure paths
  • Add tests for various sighash modes.
@sanket1729 sanket1729 added the good first issue Good for newcomers label Mar 21, 2022
@dunxen
Copy link
Contributor

dunxen commented Apr 8, 2022

Working on this.

@kanishk779
Copy link
Contributor

@dunxen could you please let me work on this issue, as I have started understanding the codebase and was looking forward to contributing to the organisation in the coming summer.

@dunxen
Copy link
Contributor

dunxen commented Apr 9, 2022

Hi @kanishk779. Yes, of course! I have not done too much yet. 🙂

sanket1729 added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 10, 2022
61389dc Fix tr tree checking bug (sanket1729)

Pull request description:

  As spotted in #317

ACKs for top commit:
  apoelstra:
    ACK 61389dc

Tree-SHA512: cef0169dcc18bd1d69b0338fc12a9c75451a314f22271bdb7ef7f533aa695434cc9e8832a28f2be2dc35c647028863bc9faa1e21449029e7917284c102651916
@sanket1729
Copy link
Member Author

This was merged in #429

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
good first issue Good for newcomers
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants