Skip to content
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

NodeSync test for when both petitioner and responder have no blocks #1188

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 12, 2019

Conversation

ronnno
Copy link
Contributor

@ronnno ronnno commented Jun 11, 2019

Description

Added a new test as required in #329 for a scenario when both petitioner (asking node) and responder nodes are at block height 0. Affecting scenarios where two nodes are launched simultaneously for the first time.

  • resolves block sync assume always 'start from block 1' #329
  • Added harness function verifyMocksConsistently for cases where mocks are expected to Never() do something. This function should be called immediately after verifyMocks which has an Eventually type behavior to be tolerant for some delay before the mocks arrive at the first verified state.
  • minor syntactic changes to remove code warnings.

Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce?
Put an x in the boxes that apply

  • Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)

@ronnno ronnno requested a review from electricmonk June 11, 2019 16:02
@electricmonk electricmonk merged commit f90c154 into master Jun 12, 2019
@electricmonk electricmonk deleted the issue/329 branch June 12, 2019 06:23
@ronnno ronnno changed the title new test to for correct sync availability response NodeSync test for when both petitioner and responder have no blocks Jul 12, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

block sync assume always 'start from block 1'
2 participants