test(block_production): Add tests to block_production_task method #478
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
GMKrieger
force-pushed
the
test/block-production-tests
branch
3 times, most recently
from
6b9d8ec to
da627d1
Compare
Trantorian1
reviewed
Jan 31, 2025
Comment on lines
884
to
926
| #[rstest::fixture] | ||
| fn pending_block_state_diff() -> StateDiff { | ||
| StateDiff { | ||
| storage_diffs: vec![ | ||
| ContractStorageDiffItem { | ||
| address: Felt::ONE, | ||
| storage_entries: vec![ | ||
| StorageEntry { key: Felt::ZERO, value: Felt::ZERO }, | ||
| StorageEntry { key: Felt::ONE, value: Felt::ONE }, | ||
| StorageEntry { key: Felt::TWO, value: Felt::TWO }, | ||
| ], | ||
| }, | ||
| ContractStorageDiffItem { | ||
| address: Felt::TWO, | ||
| storage_entries: vec![ | ||
| StorageEntry { key: Felt::ZERO, value: Felt::ZERO }, | ||
| StorageEntry { key: Felt::ONE, value: Felt::ONE }, | ||
| StorageEntry { key: Felt::TWO, value: Felt::TWO }, | ||
| ], | ||
| }, | ||
| ContractStorageDiffItem { | ||
| address: Felt::THREE, | ||
| storage_entries: vec![ | ||
| StorageEntry { key: Felt::ZERO, value: Felt::ZERO }, | ||
| StorageEntry { key: Felt::ONE, value: Felt::ONE }, | ||
| StorageEntry { key: Felt::TWO, value: Felt::TWO }, | ||
| ], | ||
| }, | ||
| ], | ||
| deprecated_declared_classes: vec![Felt::ZERO], | ||
| declared_classes: vec![ | ||
| DeclaredClassItem { class_hash: Felt::ONE, compiled_class_hash: Felt::ONE }, | ||
| DeclaredClassItem { class_hash: Felt::TWO, compiled_class_hash: Felt::TWO }, | ||
| ], | ||
| deployed_contracts: vec![DeployedContractItem { address: Felt::THREE, class_hash: Felt::THREE }], | ||
| replaced_classes: vec![ReplacedClassItem { contract_address: Felt::TWO, class_hash: Felt::TWO }], | ||
| nonces: vec![ | ||
| NonceUpdate { contract_address: Felt::ONE, nonce: Felt::ONE }, | ||
| NonceUpdate { contract_address: Felt::TWO, nonce: Felt::TWO }, | ||
| NonceUpdate { contract_address: Felt::THREE, nonce: Felt::THREE }, | ||
| ], | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure its a good idea to have a fixture for the pending block state diff as this is very subject to change depending on the test we are running. Imo this is too specific and we should probably be defining this on a per-test basis. Wdyt?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I created this on a point of testing that many more tests used this pending block setup and the file was getting ridiculously long. In hindsight, it shouldn't have been a fixture anyway because of what you said, but maybe it could be a method that creates a simple pending block from the fixtures if need be and more tests are created.
GMKrieger
force-pushed
the
test/block-production-tests
branch
from
da627d1 to
96948a1
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Pull Request type
Please add the labels corresponding to the type of changes your PR introduces:
What is the current behavior?
Resolves: #NA
The block production tests currently only test block sealing when starting a new service.
What is the new behavior?
This PR aims to add tests on the
block_production_taskmethod and related methods to thoroughly test the code.Does this introduce a breaking change?
No.
Other information
The testing format is based on #468. All feedback is welcome!