test(cli): warp commands e2e tests #5121
Conversation
…to xeno/warp-commands-e2e-tests
… different flag configs
… different flag combinations
…erent flags combinations
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #5121 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 77.53% 77.53%
=======================================
Files 103 103
Lines 2110 2110
Branches 190 190
=======================================
Hits 1636 1636
Misses 453 453
Partials 21 21
|
…to xeno/warp-commands-e2e-tests
| return `${REGISTRY_PATH}/deployments/warp_routes/${tokenSymbol.toUpperCase()}/${chains.join( | ||
| '-', | ||
| )}-config.yaml`; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the createWarpRouteConfigId and BaseRegistry.getWarpRoutesPath functions in the registry package can help you reduce duplication with Registry code here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I haven't reused the BaseRegistry.getWarpRoutesPath because it is marked as protected. Thanks for the createWarpRouteConfigId suggestion 🔥
…to xeno/warp-commands-e2e-tests
…to xeno/warp-commands-e2e-tests
| // Assertions | ||
| expect(finalOutput.exitCode).to.equal(0); | ||
| const updatedWarpDeployConfig_2 = await readWarpConfig( | ||
| CHAIN_NAME_2, | ||
| COMBINED_WARP_CORE_CONFIG_PATH, | ||
| WARP_DEPLOY_OUTPUT_PATH, | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(updatedWarpDeployConfig_2[CHAIN_NAME_2].type).to.equal( | ||
| TokenType.collateral, | ||
| ); | ||
| expect(updatedWarpDeployConfig_2[CHAIN_NAME_2].decimals).to.equal( | ||
| expectedTokenDecimals, | ||
| ); | ||
| expect(updatedWarpDeployConfig_2[CHAIN_NAME_2].symbol).to.equal( | ||
| expectedTokenSymbol, | ||
| ); | ||
| expect(updatedWarpDeployConfig_2[CHAIN_NAME_2].mailbox).to.equal( | ||
| chain2Addresses.mailbox, | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| const updatedWarpDeployConfig_3 = await readWarpConfig( | ||
| CHAIN_NAME_3, | ||
| COMBINED_WARP_CORE_CONFIG_PATH, | ||
| WARP_DEPLOY_OUTPUT_PATH, | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(updatedWarpDeployConfig_3[CHAIN_NAME_3].type).to.equal( | ||
| TokenType.synthetic, | ||
| ); | ||
| expect(updatedWarpDeployConfig_3[CHAIN_NAME_3].decimals).to.equal( | ||
| expectedTokenDecimals, | ||
| ); | ||
| expect(updatedWarpDeployConfig_3[CHAIN_NAME_3].symbol).to.equal( | ||
| expectedTokenSymbol, | ||
| ); | ||
| expect(updatedWarpDeployConfig_3[CHAIN_NAME_3].mailbox).to.equal( | ||
| chain3Addresses.mailbox, | ||
| ); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
when I see blocks like this I expect at least a little effort to dedupe/be concise
obviously these are just tests but I think maintainability matters here too
| await hyperlaneWarpDeploy(WARP_DEPLOY_OUTPUT_PATH).should.be.rejected; // TODO: revisit this to figure out how to parse the error. | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it(`should be able to bridge between ${TokenType.collateralVaultRebase} and ${TokenType.syntheticRebase}`, async function () { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
could you define some sort of 2D matrix of token types and have a single tests logic test all of the combinations?
Description
This PR tries to e2e test multiple use cases with
warpcommands to ensure that future changes that might break or change the commands' behavior are detected early.Drive-by changes
skipConfirmationpropagation in signer strategy codetest/warpfolderRelated issues
Backward compatibility
Testing