Add chopsticks workflow #24
Conversation
samelamin
force-pushed
the
add_chopsticks_workflow
branch
9 times, most recently
from
f2da4ea
to
aaa129f
Compare
samelamin
force-pushed
the
add_chopsticks_workflow
branch
2 times, most recently
from
7ea5428
to
1d64499
Compare
samelamin
force-pushed
the
add_chopsticks_workflow
branch
from
1d64499
to
78ef010
Compare
1) remove nightly 2) restrict to runtimes 3) Add comment on what the last step does
| STATEMINE_WASM: "../target/release/wbuild/asset-hub-kusama-runtime/asset_hub_kusama_runtime.compact.compressed.wasm" | ||
| STATEMINT_WASM: "../target/release/wbuild/asset-hub-polkadot-runtime/asset_hub_polkadot_runtime.compact.compressed.wasm" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should be Asset Hub throughout
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The e2e repo needs updating because its classed as Statemine/Statemint still
https://github.com/AcalaNetwork/e2e-tests/blob/master/networks/statemint.ts
|
|
||
| export default function buildTest(tests: ReadonlyArray<TestType>) { | ||
| for (const { from, to, test, name, ...opt } of tests) { | ||
| describe(`'${from}' -> '${to}' xcm transfer '${name}'`, async () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"xcm transfer" is really vague; it doesn't say what it's actually testing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the shared file that all tests use, I can rename but the idea is to keep all xcm related chopsticks tests there
| name: 'KSM', | ||
| test: { | ||
| xcmPalletDown: { | ||
| tx: tx.xcmPallet.limitedTeleportAssets(kusama.ksm, 1e12, tx.xcmPallet.parachainV3(0, statemine.paraId)), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is not the function signature of limitedTeleportAssets. Where is this stuff defined?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This hardcodes in stuff like parents: 0, so cannot be used to test teleporting between system parachains. I know this PR is just the CI/CD but it will need to cover a large set of test cases.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree, very good point. I think we as a community can evolve the e2e test repo so it can handle far more test cases.
|
Stale. |
This PR attempts to integrate chopsticks into our CI/CD process. See #23
the goal of this is so we have a framework in place to ensure any and all commits are tested against a live chain state to catch any issues that other unit or integration tests might not catch.
Initially, I added a simple test to assert we can do xcm transfers between the relay chain and assethub and while this is a good first step, we can expand on this to cover all sorts of state transitions that might cause chains to brick,e.g. runtime upgrades, large migrations,etc
My only question/concern is that we might be tightly coupling our CI runs with the e2e test repo managed by acala but even if we break that dependency we are still dependent on chopsticks. Also, I do feel that having a defined best practice on testing chains might go a long way to stop and prevent chains from breaking in prod
TLDR; chopsticks + CI/CD.
Happy to hear feedback and change this approach to how people see fit