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

refactor(tests/integration): Migrate mint and protocolpool integration tests to server v2 #22859

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Dec 15, 2024

Conversation

sontrinh16
Copy link
Member

@sontrinh16 sontrinh16 commented Dec 13, 2024

Description

ref: #20799


Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

  • included the correct type prefix in the PR title, you can find examples of the prefixes below:
  • confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
  • provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
  • reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
  • included the necessary unit and integration tests
  • added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
  • updated the relevant documentation or specification, including comments for documenting Go code
  • confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

Please see Pull Request Reviewer section in the contributing guide for more information on how to review a pull request.

I have...

  • confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
  • reviewed state machine logic, API design and naming, documentation is accurate, tests and test coverage

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Introduced new integration tests for the mint and protocolpool modules, verifying module account creation and fund withdrawal behaviors.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Removed outdated configuration files and tests that may have caused inconsistencies in module initialization.
  • Chores

    • Cleaned up legacy test files to streamline the testing framework and improve maintainability.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 13, 2024

📝 Walkthrough
📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This pull request involves the deletion of several configuration and test files related to the mint and protocolpool modules within a Cosmos SDK application. Specifically, the files app_config.go and module_test.go for both modules were removed, eliminating their respective application configuration setups and integration tests. Additionally, new test files were introduced in the v2 directory for both modules, containing updated test functions that verify the functionality of module accounts and fund operations.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
tests/integration/mint/app_config.go File deleted; removed var AppConfig for application configuration.
tests/integration/mint/module_test.go File deleted; removed func TestItCreatesModuleAccountOnInitBlock.
tests/integration/protocolpool/app_config.go File deleted; removed var AppConfig for application configuration.
tests/integration/protocolpool/module_test.go File deleted; no public entity changes noted.
tests/integration/v2/mint/module_test.go New file added; includes func TestItCreatesModuleAccountOnInitBlock.
tests/integration/v2/protocolpool/module_test.go New file added; includes func TestWithdrawAnytime and func TestExpireInTheMiddle, along with new types and variables.

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

C:server/v2, C:x/mint

Suggested reviewers

  • akhilkumarpilli
  • julienrbrt
  • testinginprod
  • tac0turtle

Tip

CodeRabbit's docstrings feature is now available as part of our Early Access Program! Simply use the command @coderabbitai generate docstrings to have CodeRabbit automatically generate docstrings for your pull request. This feature will be included in our Pro Plan when released.


Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@sontrinh16 sontrinh16 marked this pull request as ready for review December 13, 2024 07:58
@sontrinh16 sontrinh16 requested a review from a team as a code owner December 13, 2024 07:58
Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 2

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
tests/integration/v2/mint/module_test.go (1)

48-51: Consider adding more specific assertions

While the basic existence check is good, consider adding more specific assertions to verify:

  1. The correct account type (should be a ModuleAccount)
  2. The expected permissions for the mint module account
 	ctx := app.StateLatestContext(t)
 	acc := accountKeeper.GetAccount(ctx, authtypes.NewModuleAddress(types.ModuleName))
 	require.NotNil(t, acc)
+	moduleAcc, ok := acc.(*authtypes.ModuleAccount)
+	require.True(t, ok)
+	require.Equal(t, types.ModuleName, moduleAcc.Name)
+	require.Equal(t, []string{"minter"}, moduleAcc.Permissions)
tests/integration/v2/protocolpool/module_test.go (4)

62-62: Use a more descriptive variable name instead of res

The variable res is used to instantiate the fixture struct. For improved readability, consider using a more descriptive name like fx or fixture.


111-111: Remove unnecessary print statement

The fmt.Println(headerInfo) statement will print output during test execution, which is generally discouraged unless for debugging purposes. It can clutter the test output.

Apply this diff to remove the print statement:

-	fmt.Println(headerInfo)

123-123: Avoid using magic numbers; compute the expected balance dynamically

Using hard-coded values like "11883031stake" makes the test less maintainable and harder to understand. Consider calculating the expected balance within the test or defining it as a constant with a descriptive name.


172-172: Redundant error check; variable err not updated

The require.NoError(t, err) at this line is redundant since err hasn't been modified since the last check. This could cause confusion.

Apply this diff to remove the unnecessary error check:

-		require.NoError(t, err)
📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 957e241 and 04b5337.

📒 Files selected for processing (6)
  • tests/integration/mint/app_config.go (0 hunks)
  • tests/integration/mint/module_test.go (0 hunks)
  • tests/integration/protocolpool/app_config.go (0 hunks)
  • tests/integration/protocolpool/module_test.go (0 hunks)
  • tests/integration/v2/mint/module_test.go (1 hunks)
  • tests/integration/v2/protocolpool/module_test.go (1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (4)
  • tests/integration/protocolpool/module_test.go
  • tests/integration/mint/module_test.go
  • tests/integration/mint/app_config.go
  • tests/integration/protocolpool/app_config.go
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (2)
tests/integration/v2/mint/module_test.go (3)

Pattern **/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.


Pattern tests/**/*: "Assess the integration and e2e test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"


Pattern **/*_test.go: "Assess the unit test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"

tests/integration/v2/protocolpool/module_test.go (3)

Pattern **/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.


Pattern tests/**/*: "Assess the integration and e2e test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"


Pattern **/*_test.go: "Assess the unit test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"

🔇 Additional comments (1)
tests/integration/v2/mint/module_test.go (1)

1-24: LGTM! Well-organized imports section

The imports are properly organized and the blank imports are correctly used for app wiring in the Cosmos SDK context.

)

func TestItCreatesModuleAccountOnInitBlock(t *testing.T) {
t.Helper()
Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot Dec 13, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

⚠️ Potential issue

Remove unnecessary t.Helper() call

The t.Helper() function should only be used in test helper functions that are called by other tests, not in test functions themselves.

-	t.Helper()

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This one should still be removed yes

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@julienrbrt Thank you for confirming! 🐰🎉


If you found this review helpful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on X?
Thank you for using CodeRabbit!

Comment on lines +92 to +108
for i := 0; i < 30; i++ {
_, state := app.Deliver(t, ctx, nil)
_, err = app.Commit(state)
require.NoError(t, err)

headerInfo := integration.HeaderInfoFromContext(ctx)
headerInfo.Time = headerInfo.Time.Add(time.Minute)
ctx = integration.SetHeaderInfo(ctx, headerInfo)

// withdraw funds randomly, but it must always land on the same end balance
if rand.Intn(100) > 50 {
_, err = msgServer.WithdrawContinuousFund(ctx, &protocolpooltypes.MsgWithdrawContinuousFund{
RecipientAddress: testAddr0Str,
})
require.NoError(t, err)
}
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

⚠️ Potential issue

Avoid non-deterministic tests by eliminating randomness

The use of rand.Intn(100) > 50 introduces randomness into the test, which can lead to flaky tests and inconsistent results. Tests should be deterministic to ensure reliability.

Apply this diff to remove randomness:

-		if rand.Intn(100) > 50 {
+		{

Alternatively, if randomness is necessary, seed the random number generator at the start of the test to make the results reproducible.

Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.

Copy link
Member

@julienrbrt julienrbrt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ACK, one nit

)

func TestItCreatesModuleAccountOnInitBlock(t *testing.T) {
t.Helper()
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This one should still be removed yes

@tac0turtle tac0turtle added this pull request to the merge queue Dec 14, 2024
@tac0turtle tac0turtle removed this pull request from the merge queue due to a manual request Dec 14, 2024
@sontrinh16 sontrinh16 enabled auto-merge December 15, 2024 11:00
Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 0

♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
tests/integration/v2/protocolpool/module_test.go (1)

101-106: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Avoid non-deterministic behavior in tests

The use of rand.Intn(100) > 50 introduces randomness into the test, which can lead to flaky tests and inconsistent results. Tests should be deterministic to ensure reliability.

Apply this diff to remove randomness:

-    		if rand.Intn(100) > 50 {
+    		{
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
tests/integration/v2/protocolpool/module_test.go (1)

61-89: Refactor common setup code into a helper function

Both TestWithdrawAnytime and TestExpireInTheMiddle have similar setup code for initializing the application and context. Consider refactoring this shared code into a helper function to reduce duplication and improve maintainability.

As an example, you could create a helper function:

func setupTest(t *testing.T) (fixture, sdk.Context) {
	res := fixture{}

	startupCfg := integration.DefaultStartUpConfig(t)
	startupCfg.HeaderService = &integration.HeaderService{}

	app, err := integration.NewApp(
		depinject.Configs(configurator.NewAppV2Config(moduleConfigs...), depinject.Supply(log.NewNopLogger())),
		startupCfg, &res.accountKeeper, &res.protocolpoolKeeper, &res.bankKeeper, &res.stakingKeeper)
	require.NoError(t, err)

	ctx := app.StateLatestContext(t)

	return res, ctx
}

Then modify your test functions to use this helper:

-func TestWithdrawAnytime(t *testing.T) {
-	res := fixture{}
-
-	startupCfg := integration.DefaultStartUpConfig(t)
-	startupCfg.HeaderService = &integration.HeaderService{}
-
-	app, err := integration.NewApp(
-		depinject.Configs(configurator.NewAppV2Config(moduleConfigs...), depinject.Supply(log.NewNopLogger())),
-		startupCfg, &res.accountKeeper, &res.protocolpoolKeeper, &res.bankKeeper, &res.stakingKeeper)
-	require.NoError(t, err)
-
-	ctx := app.StateLatestContext(t)
+func TestWithdrawAnytime(t *testing.T) {
+	res, ctx := setupTest(t)

Also applies to: 125-143

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 04b5337 and 5f5330b.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • tests/integration/v2/mint/module_test.go (1 hunks)
  • tests/integration/v2/protocolpool/module_test.go (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
  • tests/integration/v2/mint/module_test.go
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
tests/integration/v2/protocolpool/module_test.go (3)

Pattern **/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.


Pattern tests/**/*: "Assess the integration and e2e test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"


Pattern **/*_test.go: "Assess the unit test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"

@sontrinh16 sontrinh16 added this pull request to the merge queue Dec 15, 2024
Merged via the queue into main with commit 6152260 Dec 15, 2024
76 of 77 checks passed
@sontrinh16 sontrinh16 deleted the son/port_mint_integration_tests branch December 15, 2024 11:20
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants