Skip to content
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

test: testground sanity check with knuu #3194

Closed
wants to merge 50 commits into from

Conversation

staheri14
Copy link
Collaborator

@staheri14 staheri14 commented Mar 19, 2024

In replace of #3184
Closes #3189

  • Introduces the capability to customize the resource allocation for each Node and TxSimNode individually, allowing for a diverse range of resource specifications rather than applying a uniform resource allocation across all instances.
  • Enables running txsim as a knuu instance.

Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Mar 19, 2024

⚠️ The sha of the head commit of this PR conflicts with #3193. Mergify cannot evaluate rules on this PR. ⚠️

@staheri14 staheri14 self-assigned this Mar 19, 2024
@staheri14 staheri14 added the testing items that are strictly related to adding or extending test coverage label Mar 19, 2024
@smuu smuu requested a review from tty47 March 20, 2024 10:18
Copy link
Contributor

@cmwaters cmwaters left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Seems to all make sense. Have you had any preliminary results yet as to whether having it as a separate instance enables greater load on the network?

@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ type Testnet struct {
nodes []*Node
genesisAccounts []*Account
keygen *keyGenerator
txSimNode *TxSim
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we want just a single tx sim node? Would that be sufficient to load the testnet?

Maybe it's fine to start with one and not prematurely over-engineer it

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe it's fine to start with one and not prematurely over-engineer it

Indeed, I intended to do it incrementally, first by testing out a single instance of txsim and debugging it, then scaling up if the desired load is not met.

test/e2e/testnet.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
if err != nil {
return err
}
err = txsim.Instance.AddFolder(keyringPath, volumePath, "10001:10001")
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I didn't know this was possible. This is useful also for regular consensus nodes

@staheri14
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Have you had any preliminary results yet as to whether having it as a separate instance enables greater load on the network?

Not yet, was awaiting reviews on the PR before moving forward with the test. I will conduct it and share the results soon.

Copy link
Member

@smuu smuu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks great 🚀

I only have two small things

test/e2e/testnet.go Show resolved Hide resolved
test/e2e/txsimNode.go Show resolved Hide resolved
@staheri14
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Migrating this PR to this one

@staheri14 staheri14 closed this Apr 2, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
testing items that are strictly related to adding or extending test coverage
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Running txsim as a knuu instance inside e2e tests
3 participants