discovery+graph: various preparations for moving funding tx validation to the gossiper #9477
Conversation
|
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are limited to specific labels. 🏷️ Labels to auto review (1)
Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the You can disable this status message by setting the Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
discovery/gossiper_test.go
Outdated
| @@ -4308,3 +4338,127 @@ func TestChanAnnBanningChanPeer(t *testing.T) { | |||
| // Assert that the peer wasn't disconnected. | |||
| require.False(t, nodePeer.disconnected.Load()) | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| type mockChain struct { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We already have lnmock.MockChain, do you think we can use that instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
great idea! gonna update to use that
discovery/gossiper_test.go
Outdated
|
|
||
| fundingBlock := &wire.MsgBlock{ | ||
| Transactions: []*wire.MsgTx{fundingTx}, | ||
| if opts.modifier != edgeCreationSpentUTXO { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
feels like we are adding some logic branches to the unit tests, which IMO is usually bad as they are difficult to maintain. Tho I think it's pre-exisiting, so just wanna mention this for future unit tests endeavors.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
totally agree.
let me know what you think of the latest iteration which uses your mock idea.
it still does a biiiit of logic branching to prep the mock chain calls in a specific way but i think we cant really get around that. See the next PR for how the prep here is used: #9478
In preparation for moving funding transaction validiation from the Builder to the Gossiper in later commit, we first convert these graph Error Codes to normal error variables. This will help make the later commit a pure code move.
Convert a bunch of the helper functions to instead be methods on the testCtx type. This is in preparation for adding a mockChain to the testCtx that these helpers can then use to add blocks and utxos to. See `notifications_test.go` for an idea of what we are trying to emulate here. Once the funding tx code has moved to the gossiper, then the logic in `notifications_test.go` will be removed.
Note that a compile-time assertion was not added as this leads to an import cycle.
This is in preparation for moving the funding transaction validation code to the gossiper from the graph.Builder since then the gossiper will start making GetBlockHash/GetBlock and GetUtxo calls.
In preparation for adding more modifiers. We want to later add a modifier that will tweak the errors returned by the mock chain once funding transaction validation has been moved to the gossiper.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 5 of 5 files at r1, 3 of 3 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ellemouton)
Part of #9475
This PR does some refactoring along with test preparation:
graph.ErrorCodes to just normal error variables. We do this for any error that is constructed during tx validation. This will make the commit which moves the actual validation code easier to review since then these errors will just be moved as is to to thediscoverypackage.graph/notifications_test.gofile. None of this code is used yet.#9478 is where we make use of the work done here.
part of #9494