Skip to content

Test esplora ext#931

Closed
vladimirfomene wants to merge 1 commit intobitcoindevkit:masterfrom
vladimirfomene:test_esplora_ext
Closed

Test esplora ext#931
vladimirfomene wants to merge 1 commit intobitcoindevkit:masterfrom
vladimirfomene:test_esplora_ext

Conversation

@vladimirfomene
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@vladimirfomene vladimirfomene commented Mar 29, 2023

Description

This adds test for scanning using both the blocking and async Esplora client. This code is subject to change given the redesign of BDK chain. I will leave this as a draft and will pick it up once #926 .

@vladimirfomene vladimirfomene marked this pull request as draft March 29, 2023 15:55
@vladimirfomene vladimirfomene force-pushed the test_esplora_ext branch 2 times, most recently from c5800f6 to a2e2e13 Compare May 12, 2023 14:12
@vladimirfomene vladimirfomene marked this pull request as ready for review May 12, 2023 14:12
Write tests for scanning using blocking Esplora
client. This test focuses on testing stop gap
and reorgs. There is also a focus on scanning
with script pubkeys, with outpoints and txids.
@vladimirfomene vladimirfomene marked this pull request as draft May 15, 2023 13:12
@vladimirfomene vladimirfomene marked this pull request as ready for review May 18, 2023 09:33
@notmandatory notmandatory added this to the 1.0.0-alpha.1 milestone May 23, 2023
@notmandatory
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Can we keep this in the alpha.1 milestone? does it need anything more than a rebase now that #976 is merged?

@notmandatory notmandatory modified the milestones: 1.1.0-alpha.0, 1.0.0-alpha.4, 1.0.0-beta.0 Nov 13, 2023
@notmandatory
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Moved this to beta release so we can focus final alpha releases on functional changes, leaving additional test/example/doc changes to beta milestone.

@LLFourn
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

LLFourn commented Nov 16, 2023

I think this PR is being superseded by @LagginTimes if I understand correctly. @vladimirfomene how to avoid wasting your time by having PRs like this slip is something we need to discuss. Not that it was totally wasted - this PR was a good starting point for future work but I feel like:

  1. The task was not clearly described -- do we have an issue for this? Some parts of the approach needed to be guided. This PR uses KeychainTxOutIndex when it should use as little from bdk_chain as possible since it's just trying to test esplora.
  2. We were doing it ahead of time -- I think what we needed was a bug in the implementation that we could test and fix with the most minimal test possible. Several have been discovered recently which now gives us the real world problem to verify we've solved with testing.

@vladimirfomene
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Yes this PR was definitely ahead of its time

@LLFourn LLFourn closed this Nov 16, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Archived in project

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants