Currently python unit test failures are ignored.
Fix this.
test: Actually fail when a python unit test fails #29068
pull maflcko wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from maflcko:2312-test-fail-fail- changing 1 files +1 −2-
maflcko commented at 8:19 PM on December 12, 2023: member
-
test: Actually fail when a python unit test fails fa0534d7e4
-
DrahtBot commented at 8:19 PM on December 12, 2023: contributor
<!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
<!--006a51241073e994b41acfe9ec718e94-->
Code Coverage
For detailed information about the code coverage, see the test coverage report.
<!--021abf342d371248e50ceaed478a90ca-->
Reviews
See the guideline for information on the review process.
Type Reviewers ACK theStack, BrandonOdiwuor If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.
- DrahtBot added the label Tests on Dec 12, 2023
-
maflcko commented at 8:20 PM on December 12, 2023: member
Can be tested with something like:
diff --git a/test/functional/test_framework/crypto/bip324_cipher.py b/test/functional/test_framework/crypto/bip324_cipher.py index 56190647f2..56211e231d 100644 --- a/test/functional/test_framework/crypto/bip324_cipher.py +++ b/test/functional/test_framework/crypto/bip324_cipher.py @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ class FSChaCha20Poly1305: # Test vectors from RFC8439 consisting of plaintext, aad, 32 byte key, 12 byte nonce and ciphertext AEAD_TESTS = [ # RFC 8439 Example from section 2.8.2 - ["4c616469657320616e642047656e746c656d656e206f662074686520636c6173" + ["5c616469657320616e642047656e746c656d656e206f662074686520636c6173" "73206f66202739393a204966204920636f756c64206f6666657220796f75206f" "6e6c79206f6e652074697020666f7220746865206675747572652c2073756e73" "637265656e20776f756c642062652069742e",And then calling
./test/functional/test_runner.py ; echo $? -
maflcko commented at 8:21 PM on December 12, 2023: member
Fun fact: This problem would not exist in a type-safe language.
- theStack approved
-
theStack commented at 12:25 AM on December 13, 2023: contributor
ACK fa0534d7e47d44428d3f9dea6d2f6b8e86df22d4
- BrandonOdiwuor approved
-
BrandonOdiwuor commented at 6:36 AM on December 13, 2023: contributor
ACK fa0534d7e47d44428d3f9dea6d2f6b8e86df22d4
-
fanquake commented at 11:21 AM on December 13, 2023: member
Fun fact: This problem would not exist in a type-safe language.
It's time to start rewriting code in such a language.
- fanquake merged this on Dec 13, 2023
- fanquake closed this on Dec 13, 2023
- maflcko deleted the branch on Dec 13, 2023
- PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit b642729e71 on Oct 24, 2024
- PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit 2b8ec6d366 on Oct 24, 2024
- PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit e6f19e7760 on Oct 24, 2024
- PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit a67319351a on Oct 24, 2024
- bitcoin locked this on Dec 12, 2024
