test: add V3 test case for inpool->inpackage->inpackage #29743
Conversation
|
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers. Code CoverageFor detailed information about the code coverage, see the test coverage report. ReviewsSee the guideline for information on the review process. |
|
@glozow current coverage seems to cover inpackage->inpackage->inpackage, so this might be useful |
|
|
||
| result = node.submitpackage([tx_v3_child["hex"], tx_v3_grandchild["hex"]]) | ||
| assert_equal(result["package_msg"], f"v3-violation, tx {tx_v3_grandchild['txid']} (wtxid={tx_v3_grandchild['wtxid']}) would have too many ancestors") | ||
|
|
||
| @cleanup(extra_args=["-acceptnonstdtxn=1"]) | ||
| def test_v3_ancestors_package_and_mempool(self): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this scenario (parent is in mempool, child->grandchild package is submitted and is rejected) at least in part already covered in the test_v3_ancestors_package_and_mempool() test function? Maybe I'm overlooking something?
def test_v3_ancestors_package_and_mempool(self):
"""
A v3 transaction in a package cannot have 2 v3 parents.
Test that if we have a transaction graph A -> B -> C, where A, B, C are
all v3 transactions, that we cannot use submitpackage to get the
transactions all into the mempool.
Verify, in particular, that if A is already in the mempool, then
submitpackage(B, C) will fail.
"""There was a problem hiding this comment.
ya know what, it is. Closing this PR.
|
Agree this case is already covered. Though from offline conversation it sounds like you're hitting some interesting things when it's a package RBF, so will keep this case in mind. Thanks as well @tdb3 :) |
No description provided.