AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Informational 15 Bitcoin

pytest: fix flake in test_channel_lease_unilat_closes

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Rusty Russell

83/100 · Strong
pytest: fix flake in test_channel_lease_unilat_closes

```
2026-01-30T05:55:13.6654636Z # Note that l3 has the whole lease delay (minus blocks already mined)
2026-01-30T05:55:13.6655396Z _, _, l3blocks = l3.wait_for_onchaind_tx('OUR_DELAYED_RETURN_TO_WALLET',
2026-01-30T05:55:13.6656086Z 'OUR_UNILATERAL/DELAYED_OUTPUT_TO_US')
2026-01-30T05:55:13.6656618Z > assert l3blocks == 4032 - 6 - 2 - 1
2026-01-30T05:55:13.6657033Z E assert 4025 == (((4032 - 6) - 2) - 1)
```

Turns out that 43420433829 (tests: de-flake test that was failing on
cltv expiry) added a line to mine two more blocks, but the hardcoded
110 was not changed to 112, so we weren't actually waiting correctly.

Remove hardcoded numbers in favor of calculation, and do the same in
test_channel_lease_post_expiry (which was correct, for now).

Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>

Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context✓ Mentions testing or verification
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit fixes a flaky test in Core Lightning's test suite. The test was using a hardcoded block number that became outdated after a previous change added more mined blocks. The fix replaces the hardcoded number with a dynamic calculation based on the actual blockchain height. This is purely a test reliability improvement and does not change any production code or affect real users.

Recommended action

No security action required. This is a test-only change improving test reliability. Reviewers may optionally verify the new height calculation matches the intended test state.

Security signals we found

No strong security signals were identified.

Risk score

Why this scored 15/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 0/30
Exploitability 0/25
Stealth signal 0/15
Affected reach 0/15
Confidence 10/10
Evidence quality 5/5
Human-validated context

Community notes

Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.

No validated notes yet.

The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.