pytest: parameterize test_showrunes.
What the developer wrote
Authored by Rusty Russell
pytest: parameterize test_showrunes.
Another one we want to make sure stays unchanged.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
What changed, and why it matters
This commit only updates a test file. It makes an existing test run twice—once with an old-style secret key and once with a new-style secret key—and checks that the expected rune values differ in each case. There is no change to production code, no bug fix, and no security patch.
No security action needed. This is a test-only change and can be reviewed as ordinary test maintenance.
Security signals we found
No strong security signals were identified.
Evidence from the diff
The diff parameterizes pytest test_showrunes in tests/test_runes.py with old_hsmsecret=[True, False]. It adds conditional expected rune strings for each parameter value and asserts that ‘our_rune’ is not present in the response for an unstored rune. The production rune creation/showrunes logic is untouched.
Changed components
tests/test_runes.pyInspect captured patch +19 / −6
diff --git a/tests/test_runes.py b/tests/test_runes.py
index f01e846e..a35d1396 100644
--- a/tests/test_runes.py
+++ b/tests/test_runes.py
@@ -274,11 +274,22 @@ def test_createrune_per_restriction(node_factory):
do_test_rune_per_restriction(l1, rune_per_min, 60)
-def test_showrunes(node_factory):
- l1 = node_factory.get_node()
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("old_hsmsecret", [True, False])
+def test_showrunes(node_factory, old_hsmsecret):
+ l1 = node_factory.get_node(old_hsmsecret=old_hsmsecret)
rune1 = l1.rpc.createrune()
+
+ if old_hsmsecret:
+ first_rune = 'OSqc7ixY6F-gjcigBfxtzKUI54uzgFSA6YfBQoWGDV89MA=='
+ second_rune = 'geZmO6U7yqpHn-moaX93FVMVWrDRfSNY4AXx9ypLcqg9MQ=='
+ ninth_rune = 'lI6iPwM1R9OkcRW25SH0a06PscPDinTfLFAjzSGFGE09OQ=='
+ else:
+ first_rune = 'I9TZsYEWiAwThQye-gYhpWIe1h15szWEN_qNyMSBOdE9MA=='
+ second_rune = 'uJXLfjDwNvh3KLkiCHc-wE2eBM7-AT7IT9oprKL1EtY9MQ=='
+ ninth_rune = 'j6bX7Q4L3jcVnMp56cRKRROWQevIVyIHExNKsL9iqCg9OQ=='
+
assert rune1 == {
- 'rune': 'OSqc7ixY6F-gjcigBfxtzKUI54uzgFSA6YfBQoWGDV89MA==',
+ 'rune': first_rune,
'unique_id': '0',
'warning_unrestricted_rune': 'WARNING: This rune has no restrictions! Anyone who has access to this rune could drain funds from your node. Be careful when giving this to apps that you don\'t trust. Consider using the restrictions parameter to only allow access to specific rpc methods.'
}
@@ -290,13 +301,13 @@ def test_showrunes(node_factory):
assert showrunes == {
'runes': [
{
- 'rune': 'OSqc7ixY6F-gjcigBfxtzKUI54uzgFSA6YfBQoWGDV89MA==',
+ 'rune': first_rune,
'unique_id': '0',
'restrictions': [],
'restrictions_as_english': ''
},
{
- 'rune': 'geZmO6U7yqpHn-moaX93FVMVWrDRfSNY4AXx9ypLcqg9MQ==',
+ 'rune': second_rune,
'unique_id': '1',
'restrictions': [],
'restrictions_as_english': ''
@@ -304,9 +315,11 @@ def test_showrunes(node_factory):
]
}
- our_unstored_rune = l1.rpc.showrunes(rune='lI6iPwM1R9OkcRW25SH0a06PscPDinTfLFAjzSGFGE09OQ==')['runes'][0]
+ our_unstored_rune = l1.rpc.showrunes(rune=ninth_rune)['runes'][0]
assert our_unstored_rune['unique_id'] == '9'
assert our_unstored_rune['stored'] is False
+ # This is only present if False, which is unusual.
+ assert 'our_rune' not in our_unstored_rune
not_our_rune = l1.rpc.showrunes(rune='oNJAqigqDrHBGzsm7gV3z87oGpzq-KqFlOxx2O9iEQk9MA==')['runes'][0]
assert not_our_rune['stored'] is False
Why this scored 15/100
Community notes
Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.
The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.