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
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
<!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
<!--006a51241073e994b41acfe9ec718e94-->
For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/32725.
<!--021abf342d371248e50ceaed478a90ca-->
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.
<!--5faf32d7da4f0f540f40219e4f7537a3-->
Note that mining_mainnet.py uses integer difficulty values (1 and 4) so it shouldn't have this issue.
ACK 578ea3eedb285519762087a4b27d953d8f61667f
The PR changes test to use a more reasonable rounded difficulty and networkhashps to remove false positives in testing.
Code Review ACK 578ea3e
Slightly relaxing the contraint seems fine in the context of the test .
ACK 578ea3eedb285519762087a4b27d953d8f61667f
Was unable to replicate the original test failure, but this change seems fine.