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

System test fixes for new simplified read-pool #277

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Jun 6, 2022
Merged

Conversation

iamrz1
Copy link
Contributor

@iamrz1 iamrz1 commented May 25, 2022

No description provided.

@service-0chain
Copy link
Contributor

Manual system tests [failure] with the following config

config value
tests skipped FALSE
system-tests user-read-pools
gosdk NOT OVERRIDDEN
zboxcli user-read-pools
zwalletcli user-read-pools
0chain user-read-pools
blobber user-read-pools
authorizer staging
0box staging
0block staging
0dns staging
explorer master
0proxy staging
0search staging

@service-0chain
Copy link
Contributor

Manual system tests [failure] with the following config

config value
tests skipped FALSE
system-tests user-read-pools
gosdk NOT OVERRIDDEN
zboxcli user-read-pools
zwalletcli staging
0chain user-read-pools
blobber user-read-pools
authorizer staging
0box staging
0block staging
0dns staging
explorer master
0proxy staging
0search staging

Copy link
Contributor

@stewartie4 stewartie4 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

some minor comments/queries

"tokens": 0.4,
"duration": "1h",
}), true)
output, err = readPoolLock(t, configPath, "--tokens 0.4", true)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The createParams logic above is consistent with the rest of the test codebase, why has it been removed in favour of literal strings?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

according to my testing, boolean flag doesn't work with parameter map, and read pool lock command has boolean flag. hence all the call to lock read-pool has been changed to look similar in case we need to use the parameter more in the future.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

you can pass through a boolean with
output, err = readPoolLock(t, configPath, createParams(map[string]interface{}{
"booleanName": "",
}), true)
or
output, err = readPoolLock(t, configPath, createParams(map[string]interface{}{
"booleanName": "true",
}), true)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@iamrz1 iamrz1 Jun 2, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this would work with bool values that assume the default value to be false. I have added a fix in createParams that would work with boolean values directly, so we don't have to use blank string for false values.
Also reversed all the strings back to params using createParams.
PTAL.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks, much tidier

tests/cli_tests/miner_fees_payment_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@service-0chain
Copy link
Contributor

Manual system tests [success] with the following config

config value
tests skipped FALSE
system-tests user-read-pools
gosdk NOT OVERRIDDEN
zboxcli user-read-pools
zwalletcli staging
0chain user-read-pools
blobber user-read-pools
authorizer staging
0box staging
0block staging
0dns staging
explorer master
0proxy staging
0search staging

@dabasov dabasov merged commit 358913c into master Jun 6, 2022
@stewartie4 stewartie4 deleted the user-read-pools branch June 13, 2022 23:35
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants