-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 290
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
test: transaction splitting #813
Conversation
ref: part of (and an improvement of!) #630 I think |
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.
dope 🙏 very good tests as documentation.
0x0, // reserved byte | ||
0x1, // unit length of first transaction | ||
0xa, // data of first transaction | ||
}, bytes.Repeat([]byte{0}, 244)...), // padding |
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.
[optional]
these will technically break when we increase share size, I think we could subtract from the constants here, but considering we are rarely doing that I'm 100% fine with leaving it.
having a test that breaks on purpose if the share size is changed might even be desirable.
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.
Agreed, this test will definitely break when we increase share size because the bytes of padding will be incorrect and the reserved byte will likely be two bytes instead of one.
I'm on-board with having these tests break when we introduce share breaking changes.
Define unit tests for transaction splitting. These should be helpful when we tackle celestiaorg#802
Define unit tests for transaction splitting. These should be helpful when we tackle celestiaorg#802
Define unit tests for transaction splitting. These should be helpful when we tackle #802