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

feat: aggsender e2e #183

Merged
merged 14 commits into from
Nov 19, 2024
Merged

feat: aggsender e2e #183

merged 14 commits into from
Nov 19, 2024

Conversation

joanestebanr
Copy link
Contributor

@joanestebanr joanestebanr commented Nov 13, 2024

Description

  • Split FEP and PP tests
  • Add PP that check on aggsender database if there are 1 settle certificate
  • Add sqlite client to docker

Copy link
Contributor

@vcastellm vcastellm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Blocking just to not forgot and merge with "jesteban/bump_aggsender"

Copy link
Contributor

@vcastellm vcastellm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Folder naming is inconsistent: fep vs pessimistic it should be pp + fep or pessimistic + full-execution or another option but consistent

Aside from that, to really be an e2e test, it should work the same way a user would do, querying the DB is something not realistic for the user. To check the certificates we should query the AggLayer using getCertificateHeader RPC
or getLatestKnownCertificateHeader that should be enough to know that the certificate was sent correctly.

.github/workflows/test-e2e.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/bats/fep/access-list-e2e.bats Show resolved Hide resolved
test/scripts/agglayer_certificates_monitor.sh Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/scripts/agglayer_certificates_monitor.sh Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/scripts/agglayer_certificates_monitor.sh Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@joanestebanr
Copy link
Contributor Author

joanestebanr commented Nov 15, 2024

Folder naming is inconsistent: fep vs pessimistic it should be pp + fep or pessimistic + full-execution or another option but consistent

Ok, I wil change pessimistic to pp

Aside from that, to really be an e2e test, it should work the same way a user would do, querying the DB is something not realistic for the user. To check the certificates we should query the AggLayer using getCertificateHeader RPC or getLatestKnownCertificateHeader that should be enough to know that the certificate was sent correctly.

The test, as I explained, is a minium version and not ideal, for sure. The end-point required to retrieve a certificate is not released yet ( check issue) , so the best approach is check on DB

Copy link
Contributor

@vcastellm vcastellm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The test, as I explained, is a minium version and not ideal, for sure. The end-point required to retrieve a certificate is not released yet ( check issue) , so the best approach is check on DB

I understand the situation, without those endpoints I agree checking the DB is the best way to check for certs, but the endpoints are released in 0.2.0-RC as I checked with the team, it should work with the image in this PR, the issue was closed a few mins ago, so let's not introduce more short-time debt here and work with what the agglayer have, no?

@joanestebanr
Copy link
Contributor Author

The test, as I explained, is a minium version and not ideal, for sure. The end-point required to retrieve a certificate is not released yet ( check issue) , so the best approach is check on DB

I understand the situation, without those endpoints I agree checking the DB is the best way to check for certs, but the endpoints are released in 0.2.0-RC as I checked with the team, it should work with the image in this PR, the issue was closed a few mins ago, so let's not introduce more short-time debt here and work with what the agglayer have, no?

We have another PR to integrating this new end-point, so it make sense to merge this one as-is and in the new PR update the aggsender code and also the e2e test to take advantatge of this

Copy link
Contributor

@vcastellm vcastellm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's go with this until we it's refactored in #192

Copy link
Collaborator

@Stefan-Ethernal Stefan-Ethernal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Generally LGTM

test/combinations/fork12-pessimistic.yml Show resolved Hide resolved
test/bats/pp/bridge-e2e.bats Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link

sonarcloud bot commented Nov 19, 2024

@joanestebanr joanestebanr merged commit df57e65 into develop Nov 19, 2024
11 checks passed
@joanestebanr joanestebanr deleted the feature/aggsender-e2e branch November 19, 2024 14:40
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants