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
Enhance AccountTx unit test #2977
Conversation
Jenkins Build SummaryBuilt from this commit Built at 20190725 - 00:29:02 Test Results
|
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.
👍
{ 20, jss::Payment, {jss::AccountRoot}, {}, {jss::AccountRoot}}, | ||
}; | ||
|
||
BEAST_EXPECT (std::extent<decltype (sanity)>::value == |
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.
L340 sort of overlaps with this check...I think I like this one better since it verifies against the sanity data
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.
Good point. Would you prefer that I remove the check on line 340? Or is it okay to leave it?
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.
I'm weakly in favor or removing L340, but I'm fine either way.
e9a3238
to
554dd2d
Compare
Rebased to 1.3.0-b6. |
554dd2d
to
a96e82d
Compare
Squashed and rebased to 1.3.0. |
While working on tickets I found that the account_tx RPC test did not examine all possible returned transaction types. So I'm adding that test.
Additionally, it seems that there are enough unit tests exercising Checks that it is worth moving jtx interfaces for check handling into a central location.