test: fix v1.6.1 upgrade test #1680
Conversation
tuantran1702
requested review from
joe-bowman,
faddat and
minhngoc274
as code owners
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
WalkthroughThe Changes
Poem
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? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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 as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
tuantran1702
force-pushed
the
fix-v1.6.1-upgradetest
branch
from
7b31b4c to
08bd2c9
Compare
| ctx := s.chainA.GetContext() | ||
|
|
||
| // upgrade only run on production chain | ||
| ctx = ctx.WithChainID(upgrades.ProductionChainID) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A better fix would be to make the IsMainnet() check in the upgrade to a IsMainnet() || IsTest()
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@joe-bowman I guess adjusting the test for local, testnet or mainnet a better pattern? In my opinion upgrade handler should not take the test into account.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey @joe-bowman IsTest() won't work since the chain id here is not testnet2 but some chain-id provided by the ibc test suite. I think my solution/workaround is good for now.
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1680 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 63.93% 63.92% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 195 195
Lines 13757 13792 +35
==========================================
+ Hits 8795 8816 +21
- Misses 4099 4109 +10
- Partials 863 867 +4
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- app/upgrades_test.go (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (1)
app/upgrades_test.go (1)
900-901: Ensure the chain ID is correctly set.The context modification sets the chain ID to
upgrades.ProductionChainIDto ensure the upgrade handler runs only on the production chain. Verify thatupgrades.ProductionChainIDis correctly defined and used across the codebase.Verification successful
ProductionChainID is correctly defined and used.
The
ProductionChainIDis defined inapp/upgrades/types.goand is consistently used across the codebase to ensure that the upgrade handler runs only on the production chain.
app/upgrades/types.go:
- Definition:
ProductionChainID = "quicksilver-2"- Usage:
return ctx.ChainID() == ProductionChainID
app/upgrades_test.go:
- Usage:
ctx = ctx.WithChainID(upgrades.ProductionChainID)Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that upgrades.ProductionChainID is correctly defined and used. # Test: Search for the definition and usage of ProductionChainID. Expect: Proper definition and usage. rg --type go 'ProductionChainID'Length of output: 228
|
Kind ping @joe-bowman @tropicaldog as this PR has stalled other PRs and CI being green :-) |
|
This is resolved in #1696 - the fix here doesn't actually test the upgrade handler. |
1. Summary
Fix the upgrade test failed to run due to wrong chain-id.
2.Type of change
3. Implementation details
4. How to test/use
5. Checklist
6. Limitations (optional)
7. Future Work (optional)
Summary by CodeRabbit