miner_tests number clarification #7784

The unchecked simulated fee is 10x smaller than the actual fee. Doesn't hurt the test, but lacks clarity for the reader.

ah shoot, i thought i double checked all those thanks

utACK

I'm sorry, but I don't think the new magic value is much clearer than the older one. Could we format this as an expression? (e.g. if there is a factor *10, make it explicit)

Agree with @laanwj. It is really hard to parse such numbers without putting the finger/cursor on the screen and counting... Using 1000 * 1000 * ... or int(4e6) could make sense, imo.

Maybe even add MEGA, GIGA, MEBI, GIBI etc as constants to some header file?

I can do that sure On Apr 2, 2016 5:10 AM, "MarcoFalke" notifications@github.com wrote:

Agree with @laanwj https://github.com/laanwj. It is really hard to parse such numbers without putting the finger/cursor on the screen and counting... Using 1000 * 1000 * ... or int(4e6) could make sense, imo.

Maybe even add MEGA, GIGA, MEBI, GIBI etc as constants to some header file?

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #7784 (comment)

@laanwj Yeah I hate these things as well. But the right answer is not to write them more clearly but to get rid of the need to manually calculate them. They are not magic values but just the mechanical result of subtracting valueOut from valueIn. They used to just be random values but then mining code was changed to depend on the value in CTxMemPoolEntry instead of calculating it itself, and so I figured it was safer to put the right calculation in there and avoid spurious test errors. I've been meaning to create a helper class to generate CTxMemPoolEntry's in tests for some time.

But the right answer is not to write them more clearly but to get rid of the need to manually calculate them.

Computing the values in the test itself is exactly what I mean by 'writing more clearly'. It means it's possible to see where the number comes from. (this is not just idle aesthetics by me, but I know at some point the test will need to be updated, and tons of numbers without clear explanation will make that more difficult)

(this is not just idle aesthetics by me, but I know at some point the test will need to be updated, and tons of numbers without clear explanation will make that more difficult)

Yes, I had to diagram the transactions to figure out what it was trying to do and convince myself they were wrong.