itest: tolerate skipped statuses in AssertReceiveEvents#2201
Conversation
AssertReceiveEvents asserted that the receive event stream delivers every status in strict incremental order (detected, confirmed, proof received, completed). The custodian does not guarantee that: it only publishes the transitions it actually observes, and a transition can jump multiple statuses at once. In particular, on a send between two addresses of the same node (as in the fee_estimation test), the proof is written to the local proof archive by the porter at confirmation time. The custodian's main event loop selects over both the proof notifier subscription and lnd's transaction notification stream. If the proof notification wins, mapProofToEvent publishes proof received and completed while the event is still at the detected status, and removes the event from the in-flight set. When lnd's confirmed transaction notification arrives afterwards, the event is already completed and is skipped, so the confirmed status is never published. The strict walk then fails with "expected: 2, actual: 3". Relax the assertion to a monotonic walk: statuses must be non-decreasing, valid, and end with the completed status. Repeated statuses are also allowed, since V2 addresses publish one proof received event per output.
Summary of ChangesHello, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request addresses a flakiness issue in the integration tests caused by overly strict event status assertions. By shifting from a strict incremental check to a monotonic, non-decreasing validation, the test suite can now correctly handle race conditions where multiple status transitions are processed out of order or skipped entirely due to internal event loop timing. Highlights
New Features🧠 You can now enable Memory (public preview) to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize the Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counterproductive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for GitHub and other Google products, sign up here. Footnotes
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request updates the AssertReceiveEvents function in itest/assertions.go to allow for non-decreasing statuses instead of strictly incremental ones. This change accommodates scenarios where intermediate statuses are skipped or repeated, updating the assertions to verify that the event status is greater than or equal to the last observed status and less than or equal to the completed status. I have no feedback to provide as there are no review comments.
Important
The consumer version of Gemini Code Assist on GitHub is being sunset. Starting June 18, 2026, new organization installations will be blocked, and all code review activity will officially cease on July 17, 2026.
For more details on the timeline and next steps, please review the Help Documentation.
github-project-automation
Bot
moved this from 🆕 New
to 👀 In review
in Taproot-Assets Project Board
github-project-automation
Bot
moved this from 👀 In review
to ✅ Done
in Taproot-Assets Project Board
2 participants
(N.b., fixes the flake found in this CI job, which I've also seen before.)
AssertReceiveEvents asserted that the receive event stream delivers every status in strict incremental order (detected, confirmed, proof received, completed). The custodian does not guarantee that: it only publishes the transitions it actually observes, and a transition can jump multiple statuses at once.
In particular, on a send between two addresses of the same node (as in the fee_estimation test), the proof is written to the local proof archive by the porter at confirmation time. The custodian's main event loop selects over both the proof notifier subscription and lnd's transaction notification stream. If the proof notification wins, mapProofToEvent publishes proof received and completed while the event is still at the detected status, and removes the event from the in-flight set. When lnd's confirmed transaction notification arrives afterwards, the event is already completed and is skipped, so the confirmed status is never published. The strict walk then fails with "expected: 2, actual: 3".
Relax the assertion to a monotonic walk: statuses must be non-decreasing, valid, and end with the completed status. Repeated statuses are also allowed, since V2 addresses publish one proof received event per output.