-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 366
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
INDY-1304: Added tests that show problems with current view change [test #3] #701
INDY-1304: Added tests that show problems with current view change [test #3] #701
Conversation
Signed-off-by: toktar <renata.toktar@dsr-corporation.com>
…ficate Signed-off-by: toktar <renata.toktar@dsr-corporation.com>
…ficate.py Signed-off-by: toktar <renata.toktar@dsr-corporation.com>
Signed-off-by: toktar <renata.toktar@dsr-corporation.com>
Signed-off-by: toktar <renata.toktar@dsr-corporation.com>
…t_prepared_certificate.py Signed-off-by: toktar <renata.toktar@dsr-corporation.com>
Changes: - added node with advancing node. View change start in ordering and one node break due to advance. Signed-off-by: toktar <renata.toktar@dsr-corporation.com>
sdk_wallet_client) | ||
|
||
|
||
def delay_commits_for_all_except_one_node(nodes, nodes_without_one_stashers, |
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 think it's better to call the method do_view_change_with_delayed_commits_on_all_but_one
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.
done
…ut_one name Signed-off-by: toktar <renata.toktar@dsr-corporation.com>
test this please |
2 similar comments
test this please |
test this please |
nodes_stashers = [n.nodeIbStasher for n in txnPoolNodeSet | ||
if n != txnPoolNodeSet[-1]] | ||
for _ in range(2): | ||
do_view_change_with_delayed_commits_on_all_but_one(txnPoolNodeSet, |
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.
What assertion do we check here to fail? Is it that we can not send new requests anymore (consensus is lost)?
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.
We check that 2 random requests will execute successful and we will receive reply. Now this test has assertion error in the last ordered() because except_node can't order new transaction.
Tests that show problems with current view change.
#3
Test case:
Expected result with correct view change: transactions should be ordered normally
Expected result with current view change: node X can't finish second transaction