Update QA Document #363
Merged
Update QA Document #363
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
shaspitz
requested review from
jtremback,
mpoke,
sainoe and
danwt
as code owners
danwt
approved these changes
Oct 4, 2022
| | ID | Concern | Code Review | Unit Testing | E2E Testing | Diff. Testing | Testnet | | ||
| | -- | ------- | ----------- | ------------ | ----------- | ------------- | ------- | | ||
| | 2.01 | Create IBC clients | `Scheduled` (ibc-go team) | `Done` | `??` | `Future work` | `Scheduled` | | ||
| | 2.02 | Getting consumer `UnbondingPeriod` from IBC client | `Scheduled` (ibc-go team) | `Done`, see TestUnbondingTime` | `??` | `NA` | `NA` | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ultra nit: I'd be wary of specifying test names as it might change in future.
Comment on lines
+63
to
+65
| | 3.01 | Changes to staking module | `Scheduled` (sdk team) | `??` | `Partial coverage` <br /> see [unbonding_test.go](../tests/e2e/unbonding_test.go) <br /> redelegation could be expanded, validator unbonding missing | `Partial coverage` | `Scheduled` | | ||
| | 3.02 | Changes to slashing module | `Scheduled` (sdk team) | `??` | `Done` <br /> see [TestValidatorDowntime](../tests/e2e/slashing_test.go#L502) <br /> | `NA` | `Scheduled` | | ||
| | 3.03 | Changes to evidence module | `Scheduled` (sdk team) | `??` | `Done` <br /> see [TestValidatorDoubleSigning](../tests/e2e/slashing_test.go#L584) <br /> | `NA` | `Scheduled` | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ditto: I'm a bit wary of linking/specifying test names. (Although I see this was already done before your PR so not on you!)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm yea I agree with you that linking hardcoded test names and specific lines of code is not ideal. On the other hand, the links may save people time searching through files, and I can't really think of a better alternative. Lmk if one exists 🤔
|
@mpoke I'll wait on your review before merging |
|
@smarshall-spitzbart I'll have a look over the changes anyway ;) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #351
This PR is intended to compliment #342. I split these diffs out so that extra attention could be put into verifying the updates to
quality_assurance.mdare correct.