Fix `data_loss_protect` test to actually test DLP

The data loss protect test was panicking in a message assertion
which should be passing, but because the test was marked only
`#[should_panic]` it was being treated as a successful outcome.
Instead, we use `catch_unwind` on exactly the line we expect to
panic to ensure we are hitting the right one.

diff --git a/lightning/src/ln/reload_tests.rs b/lightning/src/ln/reload_tests.rs
index ade396fbebff5e1f899e51b26ad15af7aa3ff9cb..909f76e0624785ae9f271411a96919b4a3271554 100644 (file)
--- a/lightning/src/ln/reload_tests.rs
+++ b/lightning/src/ln/reload_tests.rs
@@ -493,6 +493,7 @@ fn test_manager_serialize_deserialize_inconsistent_monitor() {
        assert!(found_err);
 }
 
+#[cfg(feature = "std")]
 fn do_test_data_loss_protect(reconnect_panicing: bool) {
        // When we get a data_loss_protect proving we're behind, we immediately panic as the
        // chain::Watch API requirements have been violated (e.g. the user restored from a backup). The
@@ -539,8 +540,20 @@ fn do_test_data_loss_protect(reconnect_panicing: bool) {
                // Check that we sent the warning message when we detected that A has fallen behind,
                // and give the possibility for A to recover from the warning.
                nodes[1].node.handle_channel_reestablish(&nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id(), &reestablish_1[0]);
-               let warn_msg = "Peer attempted to reestablish channel with a very old local commitment transaction".to_owned();
-               assert!(check_warn_msg!(nodes[1], nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id(), chan.2).contains(&warn_msg));
+               let warn_msg = "Peer attempted to reestablish channel with a very old local commitment transaction: 0 (received) vs 4 (expected)".to_owned();
+
+               let warn_reestablish = nodes[1].node.get_and_clear_pending_msg_events();
+               assert_eq!(warn_reestablish.len(), 2);
+               match warn_reestablish[1] {
+                       MessageSendEvent::HandleError { action: ErrorAction::SendWarningMessage { ref msg, .. }, .. } => {
+                               assert_eq!(msg.data, warn_msg);
+                       },
+                       _ => panic!("Unexpected event"),
+               }
+               let reestablish_msg = match &warn_reestablish[0] {
+                       MessageSendEvent::SendChannelReestablish { msg, .. } => msg.clone(),
+                       _ => panic!("Unexpected event"),
+               };
 
                {
                        let mut node_txn = nodes[1].tx_broadcaster.txn_broadcasted.lock().unwrap().clone();
@@ -548,9 +561,11 @@ fn do_test_data_loss_protect(reconnect_panicing: bool) {
                        assert!(node_txn.is_empty());
                }
 
-               let reestablish_0 = get_chan_reestablish_msgs!(nodes[1], nodes[0]);
                // Check A panics upon seeing proof it has fallen behind.
-               nodes[0].node.handle_channel_reestablish(&nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id(), &reestablish_0[0]);
+               assert!(std::panic::catch_unwind(|| {
+                       nodes[0].node.handle_channel_reestablish(&nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id(), &reestablish_msg);
+               }).is_err());
+               std::mem::forget(nodes); // Skip the `Drop` handler for `Node`
                return; // By this point we should have panic'ed!
        }
 
@@ -610,13 +625,9 @@ fn do_test_data_loss_protect(reconnect_panicing: bool) {
 }
 
 #[test]
-#[should_panic]
-fn test_data_loss_protect_showing_stale_state_panics() {
+#[cfg(feature = "std")]
+fn test_data_loss_protect() {
        do_test_data_loss_protect(true);
-}
-
-#[test]
-fn test_force_close_without_broadcast() {
        do_test_data_loss_protect(false);
 }