Refactoring binding python test

[heyolaniran]

Hello @tnull x @enigbe

In this Pull Request, I'd refactored the python binding test by introducing parallelism and by avoiding code duplication specially with event tracking and handling.

Thanks for having time to review the topic and send me a feedback if i need to make some specific action.

[ldk-reviews-bot]

🎉 This PR is now ready for review!
Please choose at least one reviewer by assigning them on the right bar.
If no reviewers are assigned within 10 minutes, I'll automatically assign one.
Once the first reviewer has submitted a review, a second will be assigned if required.

[tnull]

Hmm, honestly the only real change worth considering is the move to the event_handling method (though we'd want to rename it to something like expect_event).

I'm afraid everything else here looks like unnecessary code changes that don't really do anything substantially different and hence are not worth the churn.

[heyolaniran]

I understand, thanks for the review. I'll be focused on the expect event function and try to make some improvments about some cases when a specific return is expected too.

[tnull]

Okay, but there are still a lot of changes in this PR that aren't connected to the expect_event method transition. Please revert them for now.

[heyolaniran]

thanks for various suggestions, the history of change is more clear and all the refactoring updates are focused around the various expected event handler.

expect_event for generic events that not require specific return
expect_channel_pending_event for channel pending event with event return
expect_channel_ready_event for channel ready event with event return

[Camillarhi]

Thanks for the PR. Please squash the commits into one descriptive commit for a cleaner commit history

[heyolaniran]

Hello @Camillarhi, Thanks, I think it is good for the commit history now. Commits squashed

[Camillarhi]

Hello @Camillarhi, Thanks, I think it is good for the commit history now. Commits squashed

Not really, it isn't. There are still two commits in the PR, with the first being unrelated, and the content of the second isn't clean as well. You can use this as guidance on writing commit messages https://cbea.ms/git-commit/

[heyolaniran]

@Camillarhi thanks for the resource ! you can check now please. Thanks.

[Camillarhi]

@Camillarhi thanks for the resource ! you can check now please. Thanks.

Yes, it is better, few small grammar nits in the commit message - 'Added an expected_event function', 'This improves', and 'duplicating the code'"

[heyolaniran]

@Camillarhi thanks for the resource ! you can check now please. Thanks.

Yes, it is better, few small grammar nits in the commit message - 'Added an expected_event function', 'This improves', and 'duplicating the code'"

Truly appreciate. :) it is fixed now but the VSS test is still failing, I have i little Idea about why. Is it interesting to fix it in this case ? cause I've seen a lot of merged PR with the VSS test failure.

[Camillarhi]

@Camillarhi thanks for the resource ! you can check now please. Thanks.

Yes, it is better, few small grammar nits in the commit message - 'Added an expected_event function', 'This improves', and 'duplicating the code'"

Truly appreciate. :) it is fixed now but the VSS test is still failing, I have i little Idea about why. Is it interesting to fix it in this case ? cause I've seen a lot of merged PR with the VSS test failure.

I'd say separate PR for the VSS test, probably worth a deeper look before touching it.

[heyolaniran]

I'd say separate PR for the VSS test, probably worth a deeper look before touching it.

Thanks for the feedback.