Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 31, 2024. It is now read-only.

feat: test topos node up execution #373

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Nov 16, 2023
Merged

feat: test topos node up execution #373

merged 8 commits into from
Nov 16, 2023

Conversation

atanmarko
Copy link
Member

Description

Added test execution topos node up with parameters from environment and config file.

Fixes TP-765

PR Checklist:

  • I have performed a self-review of my code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • I have added or updated tests that comprehensively prove my change is effective or that my feature works

@atanmarko atanmarko self-assigned this Nov 14, 2023
@atanmarko atanmarko requested a review from a team as a code owner November 14, 2023 15:26
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 14, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (d951171) 61.60% compared to head (9060b9c) 61.38%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #373      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   61.60%   61.38%   -0.23%     
==========================================
  Files         219      219              
  Lines       12008    12109     +101     
==========================================
+ Hits         7398     7433      +35     
- Misses       4610     4676      +66     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Contributor

@gruberb gruberb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I like the approach. I am just not sure to what extend we want to expand our test run time for this. I would personally rather test the error cases, and leave the node up test for larger e2e tests.

We also don't test here if the right components are being triggered based on the config file. So I am not 100% sure. Maybe others can weigh in as well.

crates/topos/tests/config.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
crates/topos/tests/config.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
crates/topos/tests/config.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
crates/topos/tests/config.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
crates/topos/tests/config.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
crates/topos/tests/config.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@atanmarko
Copy link
Member Author

atanmarko commented Nov 15, 2023

I like the approach. I am just not sure to what extend we want to expand our test run time for this. I would personally rather test the error cases, and leave the node up test for larger e2e tests.

We also don't test here if the right components are being triggered based on the config file. > So I am not 100% sure. Maybe others can weigh in as well.

@gruberb I think having basic topos node up test like this can save us some time with regressions while developing, especially changes related to topos cli. I don't see how it hurts, and why should we rely only on distant and ambiguous e2e tests for this basic use-case. We are already spending much time for sequencer tests so this one does not make a difference.

Copy link
Contributor

@gruberb gruberb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM 👍

@atanmarko atanmarko merged commit d6a7bc6 into main Nov 16, 2023
16 checks passed
@atanmarko atanmarko deleted the feat/TP-765_2 branch November 16, 2023 10:42
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants