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

Test schema of Omni Core API #82

Open
dexX7 opened this issue May 17, 2015 · 2 comments
Open

Test schema of Omni Core API #82

dexX7 opened this issue May 17, 2015 · 2 comments

Comments

@dexX7
Copy link
Member

dexX7 commented May 17, 2015

Most tests we currently have focus on correct behavior and logic, but only a fraction of the information of the API is actually used.

I'm not sure, how to tackle this, but it would be great, if all fields of the results for each command are checked somewhere, similar to the ListPropertiesSpec.

@dexX7
Copy link
Member Author

dexX7 commented Aug 13, 2015

@msgilligan:

I started to tackle this in light of OmniLayer/omnicore#173 and OmniLayer/omnicore#174, however, I'd appreciate, if you could give me a design advice:

Currently I test all different types of transactions via "omni_gettransaction" in one specification, but it is also thinkable, maybe even better practise, to split and move those checks in the sub packages (e.g. foundation.omni.test.rpc.mdex, ...).

So I'm basically wondering: where should I put the tests? If you think it's better to split them and add them to the packages, then it raises the question, whether they should be part of the main specification (e.g. MetaDexSpec, ...), or rather placed into a new specification, but for each package, say for example something like foundation.omni.test.rpc.mdex.GetTransactionSpec?

This is how it currently looks like:

Other comments are of course welcomed!

@msgilligan
Copy link
Member

Sorry @dexX7 , I'll take a look at this soon.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants