e2e test case: basic send *and receive* #139
Conversation
feuGeneA
requested review from
michaelkaplan13,
cam-schultz,
minghinmatthewlam,
gwen917,
geoff-vball and
bernard-avalabs
as code owners
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's hold off on deleting the bash integration tests for now. We're still deciding if there are reasonable use cases for them that the Ginkgo framework can't replicate.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would agree here, lets leave the bash scripts. If we decide to remove, we can create a separate issue to remove them altogether.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
addressed in 98deca9
tests/basic_send_receive.go
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
After the message is delivered from B->A, can you have the relayer redeem the reward marked in the receipt? That behavior is not currently covered by any of the existing E2E tests.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, just Cam's comment #139 (comment) for redeeming rewards and checking the reward amount is correct
tests/add_fee_amount.go
Outdated
| // TODO: figure out why the following is reverting with message | ||
| // "execution reverted: TeleporterMessenger: no reward to redeem" | ||
| transaction, err := subnetATeleporterMessenger.RedeemRelayerRewards( | ||
| &bind.TransactOpts{}, fundedAddress, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this should use mockTokenAddress instead of fundedAddress. The parameter of redeemRelayerRewards is the fee asset contract to redeem the rewards for, with the "redeemer" address being the caller of the method. So we should be sure this transaction is being sent from the account specified by the relayer as the reward redeemer, and specify the mock token as the asset being redeemed.
feuGeneA
force-pushed
the
e2e-basic-send-receive-ginkgo
branch
from
3034b20 to
92f938a
Compare
addresses review comment #139 (comment)
feuGeneA
force-pushed
the
e2e-basic-send-receive-ginkgo
branch
from
92f938a to
e66a8d4
Compare
addresses review comment ava-labs/icm-contracts#139 (comment)
addresses review comment ava-labs/icm-contracts#139 (comment)
No description provided.