Added Privacy Test Scenario #3 to privacy-simple-network.py #10253
Conversation
…d added getParticipantNum method.
…ck header state methods.
brianjohnson5972
deleted the
bdj__privacy-simple-test-improvements_EPE-832
branch
|
|
||
| def getParticipantNum(self, nodeToIdentify): | ||
| num = 0 | ||
| for node in self.nodes: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
for num, node in zip(range(len(self.nodes)), self.nodes) and dispense with manually initializing and incrementing num.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
or alternatively we can do something like this:
range_nodes = range(len(self.nodes))
nodeDict = dict(zip(self.nodes, range_nodes)) | {self.biosNode : self.totalNodes}
return nodeDict[nodeToIndentify]
| minBlocksForGuarantee = 2 | ||
| assert producer not in self.getProducers() or blockNum - headBlockNum < minBlocksForGuarantee, \ | ||
| "It is {} blocks past the block when we activated the features and block num: {} was produced by this \ | ||
| node, so features should have been set." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Missing format call for block num substitutions.
| # feature should be in block for this node's producers, if it is at least 2 blocks after we sent the activate | ||
| minBlocksForGuarantee = 2 | ||
| assert producer not in self.getProducers() or blockNum - headBlockNum < minBlocksForGuarantee, \ | ||
| "It is {} blocks past the block when we activated the features and block num: {} was produced by this \ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No need for colon after "block num" in message.
| producer = block["producer"] | ||
| producers[producer] += 1 | ||
| assert lastProducer != producer or producers[producer] == 1, \ | ||
| "We have already cycled through a complete cycle, so feature should have been set by now. \ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about "Producer schedule cycle completed and feature has not been set. Initial block num: {}, current block num: {}"
|
|
||
| producer = block["producer"] | ||
| producers[producer] += 1 | ||
| assert lastProducer != producer or producers[producer] == 1, \ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This entire assert doesn't seem very useful. It will trigger immediately in a single producer network, and never trigger in a multi-producer network because the second assert below will always trigger first.
| # this is passed to limit the number of add/remove table entries are processed, but using it here to keep from getting duplicate transactions | ||
| publishProcessNum = 20 | ||
| def security_group(addNodeNums=[], removeNodeNums=[]): | ||
| def createAction(nodeNums): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
def createAction(nodeNums):
return None if len(nodeNums) == 0 else '[[{}]]'.format(','.join(['"{}"'.format(Node.participantName(nodeNum)) for nodeNum in nodeNums]))
There was a problem hiding this comment.
those one liners are hard to read.
we can have at least something like that:
def createAction(nodeNums):
if len(nodeNums) == 0
return None
return '[[{}]]'.format(','.join(['"{}"'.format(Node.participantName(n)) for n in nodeNums]))
|
|
||
| while not done and len(participants) > pnodes: | ||
| publishTrans = remFromSg() | ||
| Utils.Print("publishTrans: {}".format(json.dumps(publishTrans, indent=2))) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a reason indent doesn't match the indent used elsewhere?
Missed Peer Review comment changes from #10253.
Change Description
Added more complex scenarios and covered the Test Scenario #3. Also made improvements to Node and Cluster and pulled in common code.
Change Type
Select ONE:
Testing Changes
Select ANY that apply:
Consensus Changes
API Changes
Documentation Additions