test(fast-usdc): bootstrap test for advancement #10606
Conversation
Deploying agoric-sdk with
|
| Latest commit: |
e0d5e94
|
| Status: | ✅ Deploy successful! |
| Preview URL: | https://78f79b41.agoric-sdk.pages.dev |
| Branch Preview URL: | https://srs-advance-test.agoric-sdk.pages.dev |
| const oracles = await Promise.all([ | ||
| wd.provideSmartWallet('agoric144rrhh4m09mh7aaffhm6xy223ym76gve2x7y78'), | ||
| wd.provideSmartWallet('agoric19d6gnr9fyp6hev4tlrg87zjrzsd5gzr5qlfq2p'), | ||
| wd.provideSmartWallet('agoric19uscwxdac6cf6z7d5e26e0jm0lgwstc47cpll8'), | ||
| wd.provideSmartWallet('agoric1krunjcqfrf7la48zrvdfeeqtls5r00ep68mzkr'), | ||
| wd.provideSmartWallet('agoric1n4fcxsnkxe4gj6e24naec99hzmc4pjfdccy5nj'), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I gather we're more likely to have 3 in prod.
Is now a good time to update the builder script?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might as well... the builder script still has a TODO to determine the real addresses but I just arbitrarily removed two of them for now.
| source: 'agoricContract', | ||
| instancePath: ['fastUsdc'], | ||
| callPipe: [ | ||
| ['makeTestPushInvitation', [MockCctpTxEvidences.AGORIC_PLUS_DYDX()]], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd like to get rid of makeTestPushInvitation soon. Is it important to use it here? What are your thoughts on when to stop using it?
I see you're using the real continuing invitation API below.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Removed this test altogether since we check vstorage in the advancement test too now
| ); | ||
| await eventLoopIteration(); | ||
|
|
||
| const usdc = agoricNamesRemotes.vbankAsset.USDC.brand; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| const usdc = agoricNamesRemotes.vbankAsset.USDC.brand; | |
| /** @type {Brand<'nat'>} */ | |
| const usdc = agoricNamesRemotes.vbankAsset.USDC.brand; |
if necessary, add a @ts-expect-error here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done with as (since it's a ts file)
| }, | ||
| proposal: { | ||
| give: { | ||
| // @ts-expect-error it doesnt recognize usdc as a Brand type |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's better to fix the type of usdc where it's defined.
| }), | ||
| ), | ||
| ); | ||
| await eventLoopIteration(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Worth simulating the acknowledgement from the vtransfer bridge?
await runInbound(
BridgeId.VTRANSFER,
buildVTransferEvent({
...
}),
)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm good point, I think this would happen in a different block, so maybe measure it separately, but should be counted nonetheless. I can follow up with this.
closes: #10388 refs: #10511 ## Description Prune `testBorrow`, `testRepay` methods along with contract tests that depend on them. - Several tests are largely covered by share-pool-math tests - 1 was not, so I made a pool-share-math test to cover _repay succeeds with no Pool or Contract Fee_. - Several tests basically checked the interface guards of `lp.borrower.borrow` / `lp.repayer.repay`. These are internal APIs with static types. - testing consistency between interface guards and static types might have some value, but, I suggest, not enough for the cost ### Scaling / Documentation / Upgrade Considerations none ### Security / Testing Considerations small loss in test coverage - mostly in test redundancy `makeTestPushInvitation` remains on the public facet. Getting rid of it in due course remains critical. I expect / hope we can get rid of it in #10606 (cc @samsiegart ) . Ideally, the liquidity-pool exo would have unit test coverage. I looked into that but found that I would have to build substantial ZCF / Zoe test tooling. Since `liquidity-pool.js` is just 360 lines of straightforward Zoe API usage, I suggest we postpone that under... - #10558
refs #10511
Does not count computrons yet.
This makes 5 oracles submit evidence to provide a realistic scenario for measurement.