-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 673
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
Integrated/Scenario Tests In Rust #4586
Conversation
f7370f9
to
f2e6c05
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## next #4586 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 77.78% 61.45% -16.33%
===========================================
Files 470 470
Lines 332564 335114 +2550
Branches 317 317
===========================================
- Hits 258690 205955 -52735
- Misses 73866 129151 +55285
Partials 8 8
... and 309 files with indirect coverage changes Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
|
216dcc8
to
ef4aed1
Compare
.stacker_dbs | ||
.push(boot_code_id(MINERS_NAME, false)); | ||
peer_config.epochs = Some(StacksEpoch::unit_test_3_0_only(1000)); // Let us not activate nakamoto to make life easier | ||
peer_config.initial_balances = vec![(addr.to_account_principal(), 1_000_000_000_000_000_000)]; |
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.
Nit: I think 1_000_000_000_000_000_000 is the same as default_initial_balance so would prob just use that here as well.
d9df504
to
c55bd30
Compare
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.
This looks good to me.
There's just two changes that are needed:
- Please remove the logging changes / printlns outside of the test modules.
- Can this be rebased and retargeted against
develop
?
7dfe1bb
to
74847f5
Compare
29c41eb
to
0dcbd25
Compare
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.
Bravo on this. Excellent code quality, I appreciate all the detail you used to describe tests, variable names, helper functions, etc.
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.
🎉
This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
Description
Out of draft & ready for review, this PR implements & addresses all five scenarios laid out in issue #4554. The scenarios test multiple users & span for multiple reward cycles with the goal of the tests cross through all three boot Clarity contracts [pox-4/signers/signers-voting].
Applicable issues
Additional info (benefits, drawbacks, caveats)
Also slightly updates an error message found in pox-4 to make signer authorizations fail more clearly. Can likely refactor & extract out a few common setup functions but logic is ready for review.