Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 20 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Tests: make prioritise_transaction.py more robust #7697
+31
−8
Conversation
MarcoFalke
commented on an outdated diff
Mar 16, 2016
| base_fee = self.relayfee*100 # our transactions are smaller than 100kb | ||
| txids = [] | ||
| # Create 3 batches of transactions at 3 different fee rate levels | ||
| for i in xrange(3): | ||
| txids.append([]) | ||
| - txids[i] = create_lots_of_big_transactions(self.nodes[0], self.txouts, utxos[30*i:30*i+30], (i+1)*base_fee) | ||
| + range_size = utxo_count // 3 |
|
|
|
Concept ACK 80ab22d |
laanwj
added
the
Tests
label
Mar 16, 2016
|
Nice! |
|
Updated to address @MarcoFalke's nit |
|
@sdaftuar Needs rebase |
|
Thanks, rebased. |
|
utACK ec14339 |
laanwj
merged commit ec14339
into
bitcoin:master
Mar 16, 2016
1 check passed
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr
The Travis CI build passed
Details
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 16, 2016
laanwj
referenced this pull request
Mar 29, 2016
Closed
Increase DEFAULT_BLOCK_MAX_SIZE to 1MB #7622
added a commit
to MarcoFalke/bitcoin
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 10, 2016
added a commit
to zander/bitcoinclassic
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 16, 2016
added a commit
to nomnombtc/bitcoin
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 11, 2016
added a commit
to nomnombtc/bitcoin
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 11, 2016
added a commit
to nomnombtc/bitcoin
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 12, 2016
added a commit
to nomnombtc/bitcoin
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 13, 2016
added a commit
to sickpig/BitcoinUnlimited
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 14, 2016
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
sdaftuar commentedMar 16, 2016
Fixes the issue mentioned here: #7622 (comment)
This test was too sensitive to how many transactions might get selected; this change makes it more robust, and if there's a failure due to future changes, the test is now somewhat better structured and commented to make fixing easier.