ci: actually enable v2 system test #21539
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@julienrbrt has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 20 minutes and 25 seconds before requesting another review. How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes involve significant updates to the GitHub Actions workflow for system tests, including the removal of dependencies for the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- .github/workflows/test.yml (2 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (2)
.github/workflows/test.yml (2)
180-180: Looks good!The removal of the
COSMOS_BUILD_OPTIONS=legacyenvironment variable simplifies the command for running the v1 system tests.
190-190: LGTM!The addition of the
COSMOS_BUILD_OPTIONS=v2environment variable ensures that the v2 system tests are executed with the appropriate build options.
julienrbrt
requested review from
facundomedica,
testinginprod,
aaronc and
JulianToledano
as code owners
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (6)
- Makefile (1 hunks)
- client/grpc/cmtservice/status_test.go (1 hunks)
- client/v2/autocli/query_test.go (1 hunks)
- tests/systemtests/testnet_init.go (3 hunks)
- tests/systemtests/unordered_tx_test.go (1 hunks)
- x/auth/ante/basic_test.go (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (3)
- Makefile
- client/grpc/cmtservice/status_test.go
- x/auth/ante/basic_test.go
Additional context used
Path-based instructions (3)
tests/systemtests/unordered_tx_test.go (3)
Pattern
**/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.
Pattern
tests/**/*: "Assess the integration and e2e test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"
Pattern
**/*_test.go: "Assess the unit test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"tests/systemtests/testnet_init.go (2)
Pattern
**/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.
Pattern
tests/**/*: "Assess the integration and e2e test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"client/v2/autocli/query_test.go (2)
Pattern
**/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.
Pattern
**/*_test.go: "Assess the unit test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"
Additional comments not posted (5)
tests/systemtests/unordered_tx_test.go (1)
Line range hint
14-47: LGTM!The code changes in the
TestUnorderedTXDuplicatefunction are approved. The removal of thet.Skipstatement indicates that the test case is now expected to run without being skipped, suggesting that the conditions or dependencies that warranted the skip have been addressed.The test function follows a clear scenario-based approach and provides comprehensive validation of the unordered transaction handling functionality.
tests/systemtests/testnet_init.go (3)
17-20: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
66-70: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
124-127: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
client/v2/autocli/query_test.go (1)
Line range hint
1-1: Test enabled.Removing the
t.Skip()call enables theTestAddressValidationtest. This indicates that any underlying issues related to keyring instantiation have been resolved or the test is now deemed ready for execution.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Outside diff range, codebase verification and nitpick comments (1)
client/grpc/cmtservice/status_test.go (1)
17-17: Acknowledge the plan to rewrite the test as a system test.The comment indicates that the test is to be rewritten as a system test, which is a good approach for testing the functionality at a higher level.
Consider creating a GitHub issue to track the task of rewriting the test and add a TODO comment with the issue number for better traceability:
- t.Skip() // Rewrite as system test + t.Skip() // TODO: Rewrite as system test (https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/issues/<issue-number>)
Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (6)
- Makefile (1 hunks)
- client/grpc/cmtservice/status_test.go (1 hunks)
- client/v2/autocli/query_test.go (1 hunks)
- tests/systemtests/testnet_init.go (3 hunks)
- tests/systemtests/unordered_tx_test.go (1 hunks)
- x/auth/ante/basic_test.go (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)
- Makefile
- x/auth/ante/basic_test.go
Additional context used
Path-based instructions (4)
client/grpc/cmtservice/status_test.go (2)
Pattern
**/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.
Pattern
**/*_test.go: "Assess the unit test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"tests/systemtests/unordered_tx_test.go (3)
Pattern
**/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.
Pattern
tests/**/*: "Assess the integration and e2e test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"
Pattern
**/*_test.go: "Assess the unit test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"tests/systemtests/testnet_init.go (2)
Pattern
**/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.
Pattern
tests/**/*: "Assess the integration and e2e test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"client/v2/autocli/query_test.go (2)
Pattern
**/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.
Pattern
**/*_test.go: "Assess the unit test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"
Additional comments not posted (6)
tests/systemtests/unordered_tx_test.go (1)
14-14: LGTM! The test for duplicate transactions in the unordered transaction pool is now enabled.The test
TestUnorderedTXDuplicatewas previously skipped due to missing functionality in v2. By removing the skip statement, the test will now run and validate the behavior of duplicate transactions in the unordered transaction pool. This improves the test coverage for the unordered transaction pool functionality.The test setup and assertions seem appropriate for the scenario being tested.
tests/systemtests/testnet_init.go (4)
17-20: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
65-71: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
123-127: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
Line range hint
1-217: Code conforms to the Uber Golang style guide.No deviations from the style guide were found.
client/v2/autocli/query_test.go (1)
Line range hint
1-1: Test enabled.Removing the
t.Skip()call enables theTestAddressValidationtest to run, which is a positive change. It suggests that the underlying issue related to keyring instantiation has been resolved or the test is now deemed ready for execution.
julienrbrt
added
the
backport/v0.52.x
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (3)
- .github/workflows/test.yml (3 hunks)
- tests/systemtests/testnet_init.go (4 hunks)
- tests/systemtests/unordered_tx_test.go (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (3)
- .github/workflows/test.yml
- tests/systemtests/testnet_init.go
- tests/systemtests/unordered_tx_test.go
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good catch!
The changes look good. I am just wondering if we want to enable v2 with systemtests failing: https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/actions/runs/10742660676/job/29795732210?pr=21539#step:8:95
Nope, the job should stay required. I am investigating what's up now. |
github-actions
bot
added
C:server/v2
Description
ref: #20800
Noticed when doing the CI overview to Claude.
Our system tests were not running on v2, but only on simapp v1 legacy and simapp v1 depinject.
Deleting as well, scripts that shouldn't have been pushed.
Additionally, it fixes all error that popped up to make the test pass.
Author Checklist
All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.
I have...
!in the type prefix if API or client breaking changeCHANGELOG.mdReviewers Checklist
All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.
Please see Pull Request Reviewer section in the contributing guide for more information on how to review a pull request.
I have...
Summary by CodeRabbit
Summary by CodeRabbit
Chores
New Features
Bug Fixes