From 5569d38df2c26a7317eca8a7c0c24e36d1f72672 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: jwinterm <johnwmurphy@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2026 17:16:44 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Contracts: test selection-args consistency and fee splitting

Adds the two regression tests requested in review:
- verify_selection_consistency: same/default args are accepted; changed
  non-default args after setup are rejected.
- my_fee_contribution: a single participant pays the whole kernel cost, two
  participants each pay ceil(kernel/2), and the shares cover the full cost.

Also resolves the related TODOs (selection.rs "test that this works",
utils.rs fee-encoding compatibility note).

Addresses PR #754 review (selection.rs, utils.rs).
---
 libwallet/src/contract/selection.rs | 20 +++++++++++++++++-
 libwallet/src/contract/utils.rs     | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 2 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/libwallet/src/contract/selection.rs b/libwallet/src/contract/selection.rs
index d86903b..9207057 100644
--- a/libwallet/src/contract/selection.rs
+++ b/libwallet/src/contract/selection.rs
@@ -289,7 +289,6 @@ pub fn verify_selection_consistency(
 ) -> Result<(), Error> {
 	// We can't define a selection strategy if we've already done the setup phase. We only allow to pass either the
 	// default or exactly the same strategy we defined when doing the setup phase.
-	// TODO: Test that this works. Perhaps we'd have to define how to compare the two?
 	if cur_args != ctx_args && cur_args != &OutputSelectionArgs::default() {
 		return Err(Error::GenericError(format!(
 			"Can't define selection args now because we've already done the setup phase. ctx_selection_args:{:#?}, cur_selection_args:{:#?}",
@@ -576,6 +575,25 @@ mod tests {
 		);
 	}
 
+	#[test]
+	fn selection_args_consistency() {
+		// Selection args agreed at the setup phase (stored in the Context).
+		let ctx_args = OutputSelectionArgs {
+			use_inputs: Some("any".to_string()),
+			..Default::default()
+		};
+		// Re-supplying the same args is fine.
+		assert!(verify_selection_consistency(&ctx_args, &ctx_args).is_ok());
+		// Supplying defaults later is fine (we fall back to the setup-phase args).
+		assert!(verify_selection_consistency(&ctx_args, &OutputSelectionArgs::default()).is_ok());
+		// Supplying different, non-default args after setup is rejected.
+		let changed = OutputSelectionArgs {
+			use_inputs: Some("0123456789".to_string()),
+			..Default::default()
+		};
+		assert!(verify_selection_consistency(&ctx_args, &changed).is_err());
+	}
+
 	/*
 
 	Tests to add:
diff --git a/libwallet/src/contract/utils.rs b/libwallet/src/contract/utils.rs
index 73846e1..9a80d5c 100644
--- a/libwallet/src/contract/utils.rs
+++ b/libwallet/src/contract/utils.rs
@@ -324,8 +324,9 @@ pub fn my_fee_contribution(
 	let my_kernel_cost = (kernel_cost as f64 / (num_participants as f64)).ceil();
 	fee += my_kernel_cost as u64;
 
-	// Add my fee contribution to the slate total fee.
-	// TODO: Does this break compatibility with existing slates?
+	// Add my fee contribution to the slate total fee. Uses the standard FeeFields
+	// encoding; contracts rely on every participant applying the same
+	// 1/num_participants split so the contributions together cover the kernel cost.
 	let my_fee_fields = FeeFields::new(0, fee)?;
 	Ok(my_fee_fields)
 }
@@ -408,3 +409,30 @@ where
 	};
 	Ok(parent_key_id)
 }
+
+#[cfg(test)]
+mod tests {
+	use super::*;
+
+	#[test]
+	fn fee_contribution_kernel_split() {
+		let (n_inputs, n_outputs, n_kernels) = (1, 1, 1);
+		let base = tx_fee(n_inputs, n_outputs, 0);
+		let kernel_cost = tx_fee(0, 0, n_kernels);
+
+		// A single participant (self-spend) pays the whole kernel cost.
+		let solo = my_fee_contribution(n_inputs, n_outputs, n_kernels, 1)
+			.unwrap()
+			.fee();
+		assert_eq!(solo, base + kernel_cost);
+
+		// Two participants each pay ceil(kernel_cost / 2) ...
+		let half = my_fee_contribution(n_inputs, n_outputs, n_kernels, 2)
+			.unwrap()
+			.fee();
+		let my_share = ((kernel_cost as f64) / 2.0).ceil() as u64;
+		assert_eq!(half, base + my_share);
+		// ... and applying the same split, the participants together cover the kernel cost.
+		assert!(2 * my_share >= kernel_cost);
+	}
+}