-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
Simplify Staking Extension session handler test #634
Conversation
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
Test failure looks Wasm related, any ideas here @ameba23? |
This isn't wasm related. The test is comparing two synedrion keyshares before and after storing a keyshare, to check that the new one has successfully clobbered the old one (current keyshare should not equal orginal keyshare). But i am really confused as to why the changes here to the staking extension test would cause that to fail. |
I am gonna try re-running CI to see if its some random race-condition type thing. It passes locally my end, but i have not re-built the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
💯
Gotcha. Yeah I saw that it was during the Node test runs, which is why I assumed it was Wasm related. Thanks for opening that other issue btw. |
Opening this up since I was a bit slow to re-review the original PR in
#630, sorry lol.
Jesse's argument against calling the
new_session_handler
directly is that we'd lose thetop level
new_session
call.However, since we use the
MockSessionHandler
, and its implementation ofnew_session
is just a very thin wrapper around
new_session_handler
(which only sets the validatorset based off the session number anyways) I think it makes sense for us to just call the
new_session_handler
directly.Additionally, since these tests are basically stateless I've remove some redundant ones
(e.g, assigning two authories) since the test result would always end up as
signing_group[n] => input_validators[n]
anyways.