refactor: rename test util

[giladchase]

It was a misnomer, we're asserting the queue, not the entire pool.

commit-id:181fcd98

---

Stack:

• feat: add multi-nonce support #429
• feat: add tx_pool checker for mempool test #428
• feat: improve mempool_test debug print #427
• refactor: rename test util #426 ⬅

⚠️ Part of a stack created by spr. Do not merge manually using the UI - doing so may have unexpected results.

---

This change is 

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.60%. Comparing base (60ec73d) to head (53de2b0).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #426   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   83.60%   83.60%           
=======================================
  Files          37       37           
  Lines        1720     1720           
  Branches     1720     1720           
=======================================
  Hits         1438     1438           
  Misses        205      205           
  Partials       77       77           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[elintul]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @ayeletstarkware and @giladchase)

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 58 at r1 (raw file):

// transactions.
#[track_caller]
fn check_mempool_queue_eq(mempool: &Mempool, expected_queue: &[ThinTransaction]) {

Suggestion:

verify_mempool_queue

[giladchase]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @ayeletstarkware and @elintul)

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 58 at r1 (raw file):

// transactions.
#[track_caller]
fn check_mempool_queue_eq(mempool: &Mempool, expected_queue: &[ThinTransaction]) {

Do you want us to use verify_ as a consistent naming in such test utils?

I think we should have a consistent naming scheme for test_utils that only assert things, for readability.
So readers will feel about them something similar to how they feel when they see assert_eq.

[elintul]

Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @ayeletstarkware and @giladchase)

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 58 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, giladchase wrote…

Do you want us to use verify_ as a consistent naming in such test utils?

I think we should have a consistent naming scheme for test_utils that only assert things, for readability.
So readers will feel about them something similar to how they feel when they see assert_eq.

Don't you think passing the expected argument makes it clear we're comparing?
I'm okay with a convention, but let's go with Rust conventions (something like assert_eq_mempool_queue).

[elintul]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @ayeletstarkware and @giladchase)

[ayeletstarkware]

Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @giladchase)

[giladchase]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @elintul)

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 58 at r1 (raw file):

Don't you think passing the expected argument makes it clear we're comparing?

Here yes, but in PR 3 in the stack I want to check two things, then assert_eq will look like i'm comparing them to each other 🤔?

[elintul]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @giladchase)

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 58 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, giladchase wrote…

Don't you think passing the expected argument makes it clear we're comparing?

Here yes, but in PR 3 in the stack I want to check two things, then assert_eq will look like i'm comparing them to each other 🤔?

Let's go with my suggestion, which sticks to Rust naming.

[elintul]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @giladchase)

[giladchase]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @elintul)

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 58 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, elintul (Elin) wrote…

Let's go with my suggestion, which sticks to Rust naming.

You mean change this and PR 3 to assert_*?

[elintul]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @giladchase)

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 58 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, giladchase wrote…

You mean change this and PR 3 to assert_*?

Yes, assert_eq_the_thing_we_assert_on.

[elintul]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @giladchase)

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 58 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, elintul (Elin) wrote…

Yes, assert_eq_the_thing_we_assert_on.

Also, let's write this convention down in #elinpool. 😬

[elintul]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @giladchase)

[giladchase]

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @elintul)

---

crates/mempool/src/mempool_test.rs line 58 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, elintul (Elin) wrote…

Also, let's write this convention down in #elinpool. 😬

Done

[elintul]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r4, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @giladchase)