test: restore assertion that tx contains exactly 2500 sigops #35328

1. 
   ismaelsadeeq commented at 9:53 AM on May 20, 2026: member

   darosior wrote #29060 (review):

   This is useful documentation, plus useful in making sure the comment above the check does not become stale or incorrect.

   Hence reverted.

2. test: restore assertion that tx contains exactly 2500 sigops

   Co-authored-by: Antoine Poinsot <darosior@protonmail.com>

   ae73b69b52
3. DrahtBot added the label Tests on May 20, 2026
4. 
   DrahtBot commented at 9:53 AM on May 20, 2026: contributor

   <!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->

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

   <!--006a51241073e994b41acfe9ec718e94-->

   Code Coverage & Benchmarks

   For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/35328.

   <!--021abf342d371248e50ceaed478a90ca-->

   Reviews

   See the guideline for information on the review process.

   Type	Reviewers
   ACK	sedited, l0rinc, willcl-ark

   If your review is incorrectly listed, please copy-paste <code>&lt;!--meta-tag:bot-skip--&gt;</code> into the comment that the bot should ignore.

   <!--5faf32d7da4f0f540f40219e4f7537a3-->

5. sedited approved
6. 
   sedited commented at 9:56 AM on May 20, 2026: contributor

   ACK ae73b69b5272ce69a409eeae9bf77222b23260a7

7. sedited requested review from darosior on May 20, 2026
8. in src/test/transaction_tests.cpp:1092 in ae73b69b52

   1088 | @@ -1089,6 +1089,7 @@ BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(max_standard_legacy_sigops)
   1089 |      AddCoins(coins, CTransaction(tx_create_p2pk), 0, false);
   1090 |  
   1091 |      // The transaction now contains exactly 2500 sigops, the check should pass.
   1092 | +    BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(p2sh_inputs_count * MAX_P2SH_SIGOPS + p2pk_inputs_count * 1, MAX_TX_LEGACY_SIGOPS);
   

   ---

   ---

   

   l0rinc commented at 9:58 AM on May 20, 2026:

   Is the * 1 meant to document something here?

   ---

   

   ismaelsadeeq commented at 10:19 AM on May 20, 2026:

   Yes, for completeness. It won't hurt to make it implicit and remove the * 1 there. But that is beyond the scope of this simple PR I am just reverting the unintended regression.

9. 
   l0rinc commented at 10:42 AM on May 20, 2026: contributor

   code review ACK ae73b69b5272ce69a409eeae9bf77222b23260a7

   Cleanly reverts the affected line

10. willcl-ark approved
11. 
    willcl-ark commented at 12:06 PM on May 20, 2026: member

    ACK ae73b69b5272ce69a409eeae9bf77222b23260a7

12. fanquake merged this on May 20, 2026
13. fanquake closed this on May 20, 2026

    ---

14. ismaelsadeeq deleted the branch on May 20, 2026

Contributors

ismaelsadeeqDrahtBotseditedl0rincwillcl-ark

Review Requested
darosior