Skip to content

Conversation

@algorandskiy
Copy link
Contributor

Summary

  • The test checks rekeying before and after upgrade but nodes running
    as separate processes might upgrade earlier than the test advances
  • This fix takes this into account similarly to the app upgrade tests

Test Plan

This is a test

* The test checks rekeying before and after upgrade but nodes running
  as separate processes might upgrade earlier than the test advances
* This fix takes this into account similarly to the app upgrade tests
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Aug 13, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #2742 (8a89776) into master (6a63559) will decrease coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2742      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   47.10%   47.10%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         349      349              
  Lines       56321    56321              
==========================================
- Hits        26529    26528       -1     
  Misses      26819    26819              
- Partials     2973     2974       +1     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
ledger/blockqueue.go 82.18% <0.00%> (-2.88%) ⬇️
cmd/tealdbg/debugger.go 72.86% <0.00%> (-1.01%) ⬇️
network/requestTracker.go 70.25% <0.00%> (-0.87%) ⬇️
ledger/acctupdates.go 62.05% <0.00%> (ø)
data/transactions/verify/txn.go 45.08% <0.00%> (ø)
network/wsNetwork.go 61.21% <0.00%> (+0.47%) ⬆️
catchup/service.go 69.35% <0.00%> (+0.77%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 6a63559...8a89776. Read the comment docs.

// if we had no error it must mean that we've upgraded already. Verify that.
curStatus, err := client.Status()
a.NoError(err)
a.NotEqual(consensusTestUnupgradedProtocol, protocol.ConsensusVersion(curStatus.LastVersion))
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If this is true, the subsequent test should be skipped, and you could skip ahead to the point where we don't need to wait for the upgrade.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree but I found keeping the test logic sequential is better for readability than deep nested logic or goto.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants