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

CCIP-4165 additional e2e integration tests #15245

Open
wants to merge 17 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jhweintraub
Copy link
Collaborator

Additional End-to-End integration tests for CCIP involving token transfers paying in different feeTokens

Copy link
Contributor

@makramkd makramkd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Awesome! Are there any commonalities from each test case that can be pulled out into funcs? See e.g messagingTestCase in ccip_messaging_test.go

integration-tests/smoke/ccip_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
integration-tests/smoke/ccip_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
integration-tests/smoke/ccip_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
require.NoError(t, err)

_, err = e.Chains[tenv.HomeChainSel].Confirm(tx)
require.NoError(t, err)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

To aid in readability, can we have all of this setup in a separate function, with a docstring describing what is being done? e.g

// setupPricingTest deploys transferable tokens on the source and dest,
// mints tokens on both, ....
func setupPricingTest(...) {
// the above code, from lines 352 to 399
}

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sure. I'll see what I can do.

integration-tests/smoke/ccip_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
integration-tests/smoke/ccip_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
_, err = e.Chains[tenv.HomeChainSel].Confirm(tx)
require.NoError(t, err)

t.Run("Send Token Pay with Link token home chain -> remote", func(t *testing.T) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

q: are these test cases runnable separately or do they depend on each other?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@jhweintraub jhweintraub Nov 14, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

They can be run independently, the ticket request asked that they be put in this way and run sequentially under the umbrella of a single test.

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Nov 21, 2024

AER Report: CI Core

aer_workflow , commit , Detect Changes , Clean Go Tidy & Generate , Scheduled Run Frequency , Flakeguard Root Project / Get Tests To Run , Core Tests (go_core_tests) , lint , Core Tests (go_core_tests_integration) , Core Tests (go_core_ccip_deployment_tests) , Core Tests (go_core_race_tests) , Core Tests (go_core_fuzz) , Flakeguard Deployment Project , Flakeguard Root Project / Run Tests , Flakeguard Root Project / Report , Flakey Test Detection , SonarQube Scan

1. Invalid version: unknown revision

[A 1 <= 10 words sentence that describes the error]:[Install flakeguard]

Source of Error:

go: github.com/smartcontractkit/chainlink-testing-framework/tools/flakeguard@fa6c4ebc22c1d3c5e91dd39efeb76c4a88fc3174: github.com/smartcontractkit/chainlink-testing-framework/tools/flakeguard@fa6c4ebc22c1d3c5e91dd39efeb76c4a88fc3174: invalid version: unknown revision fa6c4ebc22c1d3c5e91dd39efeb76c4a88fc3174

Why: The error occurred because the specified revision fa6c4ebc22c1d3c5e91dd39efeb76c4a88fc3174 for the flakeguard tool does not exist in the repository. This could be due to a typo in the revision hash or the revision being deleted or never created.

Suggested fix: Verify the correct revision hash for flakeguard in the repository and update the script with the correct version. If the revision was deleted, use an existing valid revision.

AER Report: Operator UI CI ran successfully ✅

aer_workflow , commit

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