test: Add gettransaction test for "coin-join" tx #18919
Conversation
|
Mostly for #14136 (and the ten other issues I closed with the same reported bug) |
|
We would need major enhancements to support CoinJoin transactions. It's a lot more involved than just showing the correct "fee" (which this test would not check correctly anyway - some of the fee may be going to a CJ peer instead of the miner). |
|
@luke-jr If this is unsupported, it should be documented as unsupported. See also my reply here: #19002 (comment) |
|
Should we document every other thing that isn't supported too? Unsupported is the default... |
|
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers. Code CoverageFor detailed information about the code coverage, see the test coverage report. ReviewsSee the guideline for information on the review process.
If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update. ConflictsNo conflicts as of last run. |
fa592dc to
faf2d7d
Compare
faf2d7d to
fad82ae
Compare
fad82ae to
0000acb
Compare
0000acb to
fa0da9b
Compare
|
rebased |
fa0da9b to
fa20f89
Compare
| raw_hex = self.nodes[1].signrawtransactionwithwallet(raw_hex)["hex"] | ||
| txid_join = self.nodes[0].sendrawtransaction(hexstring=raw_hex, maxfeerate=0) | ||
| fee_join = self.nodes[0].getmempoolentry(txid_join)["fees"]["base"] | ||
| # Fee should be correct: assert_equal(fee_join, self.nodes[0].gettransaction(txid_join)['fee']) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we add a "todo:" at the beginning?
Just to make it easier to find broken things in the future.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not a fan of TODO comments, because I think issues in the issue tracker are a better way to track outstanding feature requests and bugfixes. An issue allows anyone to leave new context, ask questions, or look up the full discussion history on the topic.
So going to leave as-is for now.
No description provided.