Merged
Conversation
coax1d
reviewed
Apr 20, 2023
Contributor
coax1d
left a comment
coax1d
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Think there was just a small glitch if I understand correctly
Co-authored-by: Andrew <andrewburger1991@gmail.com>
Contributor
|
Looks good tho good test to add! |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
When I was recently preparing the Substrate update in #67, I was briefly confused about the tests on the
ThresholdMultisig. Once I read the tests carefully, I understood them and quickly got them passing.However, I noticed that there was not a test for the case where the redeemer contains more than enough valid signatures. This PR adds a single test for when there is a 2/3 multisig, and the redeemer contains valid sigs for all three signatories even though only two are required. I expected this case to still successfully verify, but it seems it is not.
@coax1d is this the behavior you expected?