[test] Rewrite rpc_wallet_encrypted_wallet_sapzkeys unit test as functional test #2725
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…ional test As it requires a complete real wallet, and not a mocked one, in order to perform the encryption checks, it's by definition a functional test.
furszy
force-pushed
the
2022_test_encrypt_sapling
branch
from
13bb5c1
to
684c1b5
Compare
furszy
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As this test requires a complete real wallet, and not a mocked one, and accesses the node through the RPC server commands in order to perform sapling keys/addresses validation on an encrypted wallet, it's by definition a functional test.
This solves the unneeded headaches that we are having with the unit test. Which is failing sometimes for a missing base chainparams initialization which has nothing to do with the test purpose.