Skip to content
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

Clean process_inbox entries from the end-to-end tests #2228

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

MathieuDutSik
Copy link
Contributor

Motivation

The CI is progressing in quality, but it still has some issues. This PR contains a number of corrections.

Proposal

The following is done:

  • The error messages of the with_context in wallet.rs is reduced to the first 200 which makes the logs easier to analyze.
  • The while loop of the test_open_chain_node_service is eliminated and replaced by a process_inbox.
  • The process_inbox is removed for the cancel operations in the matching_engine since it is not needed.
  • Two process_inbox in the test_wasm_end_to_end_non_fungible are not needed because in a transfer operation, only the target chain needs to have a process_inbox.

Test Plan

The CI is of course the objective. But the methodology for checking was different. Tests were run 10 times locally in order to identify if a problem was introduced by the removal of process_inbox. The result showed that no errors were introduced by doing that. It does not mean that there are no remaining errors.

Release Plan

A priori is not relevant, but if process_inbox will continue to to exist in the future, then we need to document how to use it.

Links

@@ -1065,6 +1065,8 @@ async fn test_wasm_end_to_end_non_fungible(config: impl LineraNetConfig) -> Resu
)
.await;

// The process inbox is needed on chain1 in order to get the application.
node_service1.process_inbox(&chain1).await?;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If the transfer call above succeeded, it must already have the application. This process_inbox really shouldn't be necessary, as discussed.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ok, let me revert the commit (The process_inbox had been removed but reintroduced after the CI failure).

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(If removing this really breaks CI, we should keep it, of course, and create an issue to track the bug.)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ok, will see. I need to be convinced that the removal are triggering that problem and I am not convinced so far.

@MathieuDutSik
Copy link
Contributor Author

The PR is now a little old and not the right approach.

@MathieuDutSik MathieuDutSik deleted the add_process_inbox branch October 2, 2024 15:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants