From b04c8efccc472397eeb3f13270ea0f3ef8b1cfbf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: riccardom Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2026 09:51:05 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] [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). --- client/internal/pqkem/capability_test.go | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/client/internal/pqkem/capability_test.go b/client/internal/pqkem/capability_test.go index 93cf1546b..af30ff19e 100644 --- a/client/internal/pqkem/capability_test.go +++ b/client/internal/pqkem/capability_test.go @@ -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"