#33973 test: Improve STRICTENC/DERSIG unit tests in script_tests.json

ReviewabilityReviewsAgreementSize
#33973 billymcbip test: Improve STRICTENC/DERSIG unit tests in script_tests.jsonAuthor silent 324d0Strong+48/-9
  • Clarify consensus versus standardness checks in script signature encoding tests
  • Improve test descriptions and add coverage for negative CHECKMULTISIG NOT cases
  • Author has been silent for 286 days so a review may wait a long time for a response
  • Approach ACK because testing consensus DERSIG separately from policy STRICTENC makes sense (darosior)
  • Resolved concern about lost test coverage after author restored the original test cases (darosior)
  • 1 files
  • 1 commits
Uncategorized15 PRs, unranked
1 rejected
  • Test infrastructure: not a member. Labeled Tests, but only modifies test vector data in script_tests.json rather than testing machinery, frameworks, or unit test utilities.
Reviewability: ReadyStalePaused
Agreement: StrongPositivePositive w/ caveatsNeutralMildDisputedBlockedCrickets
Reviews: current code-review ACKs, then (+stale ACKs) and -NACKs; greener = more ACKs.
Size: lines added or modified outside tests, then in tests; greener = smaller.

Goal

Updates signature encoding test cases in script_tests.json to verify against the DERSIG flag instead of STRICTENC. It also improves test descriptions and adds two error cases to the CHECKMULTISIG NOT test section.

Problem: Existing signature encoding tests used the STRICTENC policy flag instead of the consensus DERSIG flag, obscuring which checks enforce consensus rules versus standardness policy. Explanatory descriptions and coverage of negative cases in CHECKMULTISIG NOT were also lacking.

Evidence of importance:

  • PR description: 'STRICTENC rules are a superset of DERSIG rules, and only DERSIG is a consensus flag.'

Scope: Modifies test data in script_tests.json only.

What the assessment lacked:

  • diff

Reviewability

Stale · Author silent 324d

No author activity for 324 days; a review may wait a long time for a response.

Agreement

Strong

substantive support, no open objection (darosior)

Thread notes: Initial assessment. darosior provided Concept/Approach ACK; a nonblocking concern regarding potential loss of test coverage from replacing existing STRICTENC tests was resolved when the author restored them.

Objections, suggestions, and questions:

ReviewerTypeHarm, request, or questionStatusMust beAuthor repliedQuote
darosior (member)objection, maintenanceremoving existing test cases might reduce test coverage and makes review harderfixed · fix pushed · v1, not yet re-checkedansweredyes2025-12-09: 'removing existing cases makes it harder to review because it might reduce coverage'
Status from: 2025-12-10: billymcbip: 'I added the STRICTENC tests back.'

Support:

  • darosior (member) (Approach ACK, 2025-12-04): Makes sense to test `DERSIG` separately from `STRICTENC` since it's the only one enabled by consensus.
  • darosior (member) (2025-12-05): Looks good to me, just want to confirm my understanding of one of the test cases. [not substantive]

Participants:

  • darosior (member, objection, 5 statements 2025-12-04 to 2025-12-09): Concept/Approach ACK, but objected to removing existing STRICTENC test cases (resolved)
  • fanquake (member, neutral, 1 statements 2025-12-05 to 2025-12-05): noted that a Windows CI failure was unrelated

Files

File list not available for this run.

Uncertainties

  • The diff was not provided, though the commit message and file change size (+48/-9 in 1 file) align with the description.

Card

The short text the ranking pass compares across PRs.

Updates unit tests in script_tests.json to test signature encoding against the consensus DERSIG flag rather than the STRICTENC policy flag. It also expands test descriptions and adds two error cases to the CHECKMULTISIG NOT section. The author notes that STRICTENC is a superset of DERSIG and only DERSIG is a consensus rule.

Data

dossier JSON · extract JSON · model ledger, generated 2026-09-18T04:01, confidence medium, input hash e10ead99f72d1e23
thread read through 2025-12-10 (11 statements), head 188f67326d
Discussion read under schema 1 rules: suggestions and questions may be missing, and an objection may combine several harms (schema history).
labels: Tests · draft