-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 130
AT DSL - Removing WaitCondition, consistently applying Condition instead #1513
AT DSL - Removing WaitCondition, consistently applying Condition instead #1513
Conversation
…emoving-waituntil-from-node
…emoving-waituntil-from-node
|
||
minerNode1.execute(cliqueTransactions.createAddProposal(minerNode2)); | ||
cluster.waitUntil(wait.chainHeadHasProgressedByAtLeast(minerNode1, 1)); | ||
cluster.verify(blockchain.minimumHeightProgression(minerNode1, 1)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
progression sounds a bit odd here. Is there a consistent phrasing or tense used or meant to be used for the dsl?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
suggested alternative?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
blockchain.reachesHeight()
?
minerNode1.execute(cliqueTransactions.createAddProposal(minerNode3)); | ||
minerNode2.execute(cliqueTransactions.createAddProposal(minerNode3)); | ||
cluster.waitUntil(cliqueValidatorsChanged); | ||
cluster.verify(cliqueValidatorsChanged); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This line should be removed - if we're ditching the "waiting" concept, then no need to ensure miner1 has changed - just ensure all the cluster have in the next line (and thus line 38 can probably go too).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
done
PR description
WaitCondition is really a Condition :. removing WaitCondition
Fixed Issue(s)