Test listlockunspent
#332
Test listlockunspent
#332
Conversation
integration_test/tests/wallet.rs
Outdated
| let txid = utxo.txid.parse::<bitcoin::Txid>().expect("parse txid"); | ||
| let vout = utxo.vout as u32; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not just use utxo.into_model() ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i.e., model::ListLockUnspentItem has these fields.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In fd50399 the wallet__lock_unspent() test still has this same pattern in it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, I forgot I had that bit in this patch. Done now and swapped the patch that changes account to an option to be first.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A small aside, because I switched to jj and have not got a fixed workflow yet: I rearranged the commits and did the edits without rebasing onto the updated master like I used to with git.
As a reviewer do you care either way, assuming no merge conflicts with the new master?
integration_test/tests/wallet.rs
Outdated
| let model: Result<mtype::ListLockUnspent, ListLockUnspentItemError> = json.into_model(); | ||
| let model = model.unwrap(); | ||
|
|
||
| assert!(model.0.iter().any(|o| o.txid.to_string() == utxo.txid && o.vout as i64 == utxo.vout)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't need to allocate a string here. In general we only want to allocate if totally necessary. (This is a bit of geek thing, we always tend to optimize for speed even in test code.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fixed by addressing the previous comment.
jamillambert
force-pushed
the
0814-listlockunspent
branch
from
b7cc253 to
ce1d980
Compare
|
Addressed the comments. |
|
Reviewed ce1d980 |
When an unspent item is returned it does not contain the deprecated field `account`. Make the field an Option.
Testing `listlockunspent` requires `lockunspent` to lock a specified transaction. Change the client macro to take a `txid` and update the test.
`listlockunspent` was untested. Add a test
jamillambert
force-pushed
the
0814-listlockunspent
branch
from
ce1d980 to
e36548b
Compare
Testing
listlockunspentuseslockunspentandlistunspent. This highlighted a couple of issues:lockunspentneeds atxidas an input to lock a specific transaction, I am not sure anything is done if nothing is passed?listunspentthere is an error due to a missing fieldaccount. This is listed in the help as deprecated and returns "" for the default account, but in the test it is not returned at all.Address these and add a test:
lockunspentclient macro to take atxid.accountfield inlistunspentiteman option.listlockunspent.