test: add message type validation spec tests#837
test: add message type validation spec tests#837shane-moore wants to merge 12 commits intosigp:unstablefrom
Conversation
|
Claude finished @shane-moore's task in 2m 22s —— View job Code Review CompleteThis PR adds comprehensive spec test coverage for SSV message type serialization and validation. The implementation is well-structured with good separation of concerns between deserializers, type modifications, and test infrastructure. However, there are several issues that need attention before merging. Critical Issues (Must Fix)1. Production-Unsafe
|
cc92b71 to
a4cdeb7
Compare
|
@claude, fixed your point 4.
|
|
Claude finished @shane-moore's task in 1m 36s —— View job Review Response AnalysisVerified Fixes ✓
Disputed Points ReviewYou're right on all disputed points. Here's my analysis: #1 - #3 - #5 - Intermediate structs documentation: Valid pushback. The structs already have clear doc comments:
#6 - #7 - Missing JSON examples: Valid pushback. These are internal #8 - Submodule documentation: Out of scope. While #9 - No unit tests for deserializers: Valid pushback. The deserializers are exercised by the spec test fixtures. Integration tests that use the deserializers provide coverage - separate unit tests would be redundant. ConclusionPoints 2 and 4 are properly fixed. The disputed points are all reasonable pushback - the original review was overly pedantic in several areas and missed existing documentation in others. The PR is in good shape. Recommendation: Approve the PR. The critical issues have been addressed, and the disputed points don't warrant changes. |
|
Claude finished @shane-moore's task in 1m 21s —— View job Re-evaluation Complete ✓Verified FixesPoint 2:
Point 4: Magic Number Error Code ✓ FIXED
Review ReassessmentPoint 1:
Point 3:
Point 5: Intermediate structs documentation → Valid pushback
Points 6-9: Suggestions, not issues → Reasonable to defer
SummaryCritical issues (points 2 & 4): ✓ Fixed The PR is in good shape. The original review was overly strict and contained three errors (points 1, 3, 5) where it flagged non-issues. Your pushback is justified. |
a4cdeb7 to
df8499a
Compare
05c0e51 to
48a3677
Compare
Issue Addressed
Continuation of spec test PR's
Proposed Changes
SSVMessage,SignedSSVMessage, andPartialSignatureMessages.Additional Info
Blocked by #835 since this PR is built on top of it's commits