[client] pqkem: fix the capability-signal wording in a test comment

Non-capability is signalled by an empty KEM payload over signalling, not by a
missing PQ port. Correct the test's comment.

Found in cubic review on #7098 (client/internal/pqkem/capability_test.go:11).
This commit is contained in:
riccardom
2026-10-09 09:51:05 +02:00
parent f660e2e578
commit b04c8efccc
+4 -3
View File
@@ -7,9 +7,10 @@ import (
"github.com/stretchr/testify/require"
)
// TestManager_NonCapablePeerNotOffered: a peer known not to run the KEM (it advertised
// no PQ port over signalling) is never offered an exchange, and no failure is raised —
// this is what stops the reoffer storm against non-PQ peers (e.g. Rosenpass peers).
// TestManager_NonCapablePeerNotOffered: a peer known not to run the KEM (it answered our
// offer with an empty KEM payload over signalling) is never offered an exchange, and no
// failure is raised — this is what stops the reoffer storm against non-PQ peers (e.g.
// Rosenpass peers).
func TestManager_NonCapablePeerNotOffered(t *testing.T) {
wg := newFakeWG()
d := NewManager("bbbb", wg, nil) // initiator vs "aaaa"