test: round difficulty and networkhashps #32725

1. 
   Sjors commented at 9:40 am on June 11, 2025: member

   Both are rational numbers. Client software should only use them to display information to humans. Followup calculations should use the underlying values such as target.

   Therefore it’s not necessary to test the handling of these floating point values. Round them down to avoid spurious test failures.

   Fixes #32515

2. test: round difficulty and networkhashps

   Both are rational numbers. Client software should only use them to
   display information to humans. Followup calculations should use the
   underlying values such as target.
   
   Therefore it's not necessary to test the handling of these floating
   point values. Round them down to avoid spurious test failures.
   
   Fixes #32515

   578ea3eedb
3. 
   DrahtBot commented at 9:40 am on June 11, 2025: contributor

   The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

   Code Coverage & Benchmarks

   For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/32725.

   Reviews

   See the guideline for information on the review process.

   Type	Reviewers
   ACK	w0xlt, janb84, Prabhat1308, achow101

   If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.

4. DrahtBot added the label Tests on Jun 11, 2025
5. 
   Sjors commented at 9:44 am on June 11, 2025: member

   Note that mining_mainnet.py uses integer difficulty values (1 and 4) so it shouldn’t have this issue.
6. 
   w0xlt commented at 5:38 pm on June 11, 2025: contributor

   Code review ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32725/commits/578ea3eedb285519762087a4b27d953d8f61667f
7. 
   janb84 commented at 12:31 pm on June 12, 2025: contributor

   ACK 578ea3eedb285519762087a4b27d953d8f61667f

   • Code review ✅
   • compiled & tested ✅

   The PR changes test to use a more reasonable rounded difficulty and networkhashps to remove false positives in testing.

8. 
   Prabhat1308 commented at 6:17 pm on June 16, 2025: contributor

   Code Review ACK 578ea3e

   Slightly relaxing the contraint seems fine in the context of the test .

9. 
   achow101 commented at 11:24 pm on June 20, 2025: member

   ACK 578ea3eedb285519762087a4b27d953d8f61667f

   Was unable to replicate the original test failure, but this change seems fine.

10. achow101 merged this on Jun 20, 2025
11. achow101 closed this on Jun 20, 2025

    ---

Contributors
Sjors DrahtBot w0xlt janb84 Prabhat1308 achow101

Labels
Tests