itest: fix endorsement itests

[ziggie1984]

Due to the signaling period expiring tests had to be adopted bc
they were not taking the activation time period into account.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @ziggie1984, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request resolves an issue in the experimental endorsement integration tests where they did not properly consider the feature's activation time period. By implementing a mechanism to check if the experimental endorsement window is still active, the tests and related utility functions now dynamically adjust their behavior, ensuring correct operation and preventing erroneous signaling or validation once the experimental period has expired.

Highlights

• Conditional Endorsement Logic: The integration tests for experimental endorsement now correctly account for the feature's activation time period, ensuring that endorsement signaling and validation only occur when the experiment is active.
• New Utility Function: A new utility function, ExperimentalEndorsementActive(), has been introduced to determine if the experimental endorsement window is currently open.
• Test Adaptation: The testEndorsement function has been updated to utilize the new ExperimentalEndorsementActive() utility, preventing endorsement checks from being performed once the experimental period has concluded.
• Custom Record Handling: The CustomRecordsWithUnendorsed function was modified to prevent the addition of unendorsed signals to custom records if the experimental endorsement period has ended.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[ziggie1984]

This is a quick fix, maybe we should think of removing those time based endorsement tests completely ?

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request addresses failing integration tests for the endorsement feature by making them aware of the feature's activation period. The changes correctly adapt the test logic to only expect endorsement signals when the feature is active. The implementation is sound, and I have a couple of suggestions to enhance code clarity and simplify some of the new logic.

[bitromortac]

This is a quick fix, maybe we should think of removing those time based endorsement tests completely?

LGTM as a fix 🎉, but I agree that we could remove the tests (and code?) if the experiment was done.

[hieblmi]

Thanks for the fixes, besides nits this LGTM!

[hieblmi]

nit: could do a var-block

[hieblmi]

We can remove this else if we initialize expectedValue with []byte{lnwire.ExperimentalUnendorsed}.

[github-actions]

Successfully created backport PR for v0.20.x-branch:

• [v0.20.x-branch] Backport #10476: itest: fix endorsement itests #10477