test(a3p): migrate wallet and vaults related tests from a3p-proposals to the z:acceptance

[Jorge-Lopes]

closes: Agoric/BytePitchPartnerEng#5
closes: Agoric/BytePitchPartnerEng#7
refs: #10049

Description

This PR is part of an ongoing effort to migrate some of the selected test cases from a3p-proposals to the z:acceptance test phase.

This particular PR new tests focus on:

• invitations and payments behavior within the smart wallet
• actions that can be executed on vaults

The source code of the migrated tests are:

• send invitation via namesByAddress
• exitOffer tool reclaims stuck payment
• ante handler sends fee only to vbank/reserve
• Vault actions executed on actions.sh

Security Considerations

n/a

Scaling Considerations

n/a

Documentation Considerations

One commit included in this PR fixes a small typo on a3p-integration/proposals/README.md

Testing Considerations

The new test files included in this PR are invoked through test.sh, so no changes to the current testing workflow are necessary.

However, as pointed out by @dckc in this comment, using waitForBlock() can lead to unexpected behavior. To address this, we plan to update the z:acceptance tests to mitigate this issue.

As a solution, we propose extending the @agoric/synthetic-chain package to export a method like makeRetryUntilCondition or a similar function. This would provide a more reliable alternative to waitForBlock().

Additionally, there is already an test-vaults.mts file that test operations related to changes on auctions parameters.
To avoid confusion with vaults.test due to the similarity in names, I propose renaming this file to auction.test and expanding its scope to cover all auction-related tests.

Upgrade Considerations

n/a

[Chris-Hibbert]

I'd like to see a list of what test in a3p these replace.

[dckc]

IOU more info about which of these comments is critical vs. just suggestions.

[Jorge-Lopes]

I'd like to see a list of what test in a3p these replace.

I updated the PR's description to provide the list of replaced a3p tests, being them:

• send invitation via namesByAddress
• exitOffer tool reclaims stuck payment
• ante handler sends fee only to vbank/reserve
• Vault actions executed on actions.sh

[Chris-Hibbert]

The form I'm more used to seeing is this

Suggested change

	const error = await t.throwsAsync(() =>
	openVault(USER1ADDR, mint, collateral),
	);
	t.true(
	error?.message.includes(
	'Error: Vault creation requires a minInitialDebt of {"brand":"[Alleged: IST brand]","value":"[5000000n]"}',
	),
	'Error message does not contain the expected text',
	);
	await t.throwsAsync(
	openVault(USER1ADDR, mint, collateral),
	message: 'Error: Vault creation requires a minInitialDebt of {"brand":"[Alleged: IST brand]","value":"[5000000n]"}',
	);

There are forms that use regexps with // pattterns, as well.

[Jorge-Lopes]

I missed the earlier suggestion regarding the use of regular expressions made by @dckc on this comment for the error message. I wasn't aware that a regular expression could be provided as the expectation in t.throwsAsync(), which is why I overlooked it initially.

I also apologize for prematurely resolving the conversation. I understand that it made it harder to track the changes made and open questions. Moving forward, I will make sure to leave conversations open and wait for the original commenter to resolve them.

Thank you for your patience and guidance.

Changes addressed on commit 2f7d52d

[Jorge-Lopes]

I noticed that the original pull request included merge commits due to fetching the state of the upstream repository.
To align with the guidelines to to keep the commit history clean, I have rebased my branch against the upstream master branch and removed the unnecessary merge commits.
This process resulted in the PR being closed and reopened.

I am sorry for any inconvenience and please let me know if anything else is needed.
Thank you.

[Chris-Hibbert]

We don't usually require a re-review after rebasing for merge. Did anything interesting change? If not, my previous approval holds.

[Chris-Hibbert]

@LuqiPan pointed out that the merge process may require more assistance from us. Sorry, I didn't realize that. We (Luqi) are looking into that.

[Jorge-Lopes]

@LuqiPan pointed out that the merge process may require more assistance from us. Sorry, I didn't realize that. We (Luqi) are looking into that.

Thank you for the feedback.
If there's anything else we can do to help with the merge process, just let us know.