Conversation
acruikshank
left a comment
acruikshank
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks mostly good, but (as we discussed elsewhere) the behavior when two active requests share blocks and one of them ignores blocks needs to be resolved.
| linkTracker := prs.getLinkTracker(requestID) | ||
| isUnique = linkTracker.BlockRefCount(link) == 0 | ||
| _, noBlockRequest := prs.noBlockRequests[requestID] | ||
| isUnique = linkTracker.BlockRefCount(link) == 0 && !noBlockRequest |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
isUnique is now misleading. shouldSend?
| }) | ||
| require.NoError(t, err) | ||
|
|
||
| assertSentNotOnWire(t, bd1, blks[0]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we change this to assertNotSentOnWire? I assume this tests that the block is not sent at all, instead of it being sent but not on the wire like the name suggests.
| return nil | ||
| }) | ||
| require.NoError(t, err) | ||
| fph.AssertResponses(expectedResponses{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should there be an assertion that the blks[0] was sent? I would expect that it was since IgnoreAllBlocks has not been called for requestID2, and I assume that's the point of this second transaction. Some comments on what the different sections of this test are trying to achieve would be helpful.
2 participants
No description provided.