-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Point Tests to RSKj master (Iris) instead of PAPYRUS #124
Conversation
jjtechuy
commented
May 14, 2021
- Added parameters for repo, branch and release at config.yml
- Pointed tests to go against RSKj/master instead of PAPYRUS
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
CI tests are failing with latest change to use master instead of PAPYRUS-2.0.1. I cannot approve this PR until tests are passing again.
- Add report and branch parameters - Point to rskj/master
Activating Iris HF
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
checks are passing, so in principle it looks good 👍
leaving a couple of comments down below and some more here.
firstly, @JONAF2103 and @mauricioirace have implemented the following auxiliary function:
this could be an alternative to the changes made in this PR to files test/EnvelopingUtils.test.ts
, test/relayclient/RelayClient.test.ts
and test/relayclient/RelayProvider.test.ts
.
lastly: do you think would it be prudent to wait for the official Iris release before merging this PR?
thanks
- store_artifacts: | ||
path: ~/rsksmart/rskj/rskj-core/build/libs/logs | ||
destination: ~/rskj/logs |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
may i ask why this was added only to test thread #6?
(not entirely sure what the purpose of this is, but mainly curious)
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ const { expect, assert } = chai.use(chaiAsPromised).use(sinonChai) | |||
const TestVerifierConfigurableMisbehavior = artifacts.require('TestVerifierConfigurableMisbehavior') | |||
const TestDeployVerifierConfigurableMisbehavior = artifacts.require('TestDeployVerifierConfigurableMisbehavior') | |||
|
|||
const revertReasonSupported = false | |||
const revertReasonSupported = true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
rather than having this const
as true
, wouldn't it be better to remove it and have the affected test like this?:
describe('#validateViewCallSucceeds()', function () {
// RelayHub contract
it('should fail to relay rejected transaction', async function () {
const req = await env.createRelayHttpRequest()
req.metadata.signature = INCORRECT_ECDSA_SIGNATURE
const method = env.relayHub.contract.methods.relayCall(req.relayRequest, req.metadata.signature)
try {
await env.relayServer.validateViewCallSucceeds(method, req, 2000000)
assert.fail()
} catch (e) {
assert.include(e.message, 'signature mismatch')
}
})
})
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM!