Skip to content

Conversation

@f3r10
Copy link
Contributor

@f3r10 f3r10 commented Sep 21, 2024

will close #5

@f3r10 f3r10 marked this pull request as ready for review September 25, 2024 20:34
Copy link
Collaborator

@ValuedMammal ValuedMammal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for porting the tests over. It will be easier to merge if you drop the merge commit 52298b2 and rebase the changes onto the master branch instead. For now these are my high level thoughts

  • @matthiasdebernardini raised a good point recently: as a database implementation we don't intend on storing private keys so it's probably better to use tpub descriptors for the tests and examples
  • For the two-wallet test it would be good to check that wallets persisted with different data do not in fact return the same data back (we'll probably need the changes from #10 to make this work)
  • I think syncing with electrum would be better suited as a runnable example than a unit test. A good way to test the library would be to construct a bdk_wallet::ChangeSet with some arbitrary data, then write it to the database and check the state of the wallet after loading.

@f3r10 f3r10 force-pushed the replicate_test_from_bdk_repo branch from 52298b2 to 1170bdd Compare October 1, 2024 16:30
Copy link
Collaborator

@ValuedMammal ValuedMammal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ACK 1170bdd

@ValuedMammal ValuedMammal merged commit a0a7fb5 into bitcoindevkit:master Oct 4, 2024
2 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add more tests

3 participants