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

test(consensus-types): add more test for types #1729

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 9, 2024

Conversation

hoank101
Copy link
Contributor

@hoank101 hoank101 commented Jul 9, 2024

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Tests
    • Added comprehensive test cases for various data structures to ensure correct serialization, deserialization, tree generation, and hashing.
    • Introduced tests for functionalities related to BeaconBlockBodyDenebPlus, including marshaling, tree operations, and data access methods.
    • Added test cases for SlashingInfo involving SSZ data handling and Merkle tree root generation.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jul 9, 2024

Walkthrough

The recent update introduces new test coverage for various types within the consensus module, ensuring robust validation for serialization, deserialization, and tree operations using SSZ encoding. These changes enhance the reliability of the AttestationData, BeaconBlockBodyDenebPlus, and SlashingInfo structures, crucial for blockchain consensus mechanisms.

Changes

File Path Description
.../types/attestation_data_test.go Added tests for AttestationData SSZ encoding, tree generation, and hashing.
.../types/body_denebplus_test.go Added various tests for BeaconBlockBodyDenebPlus including SSZ marshalling, tree operations, and various data accessors.
.../types/slashing_info_test.go Introduced tests for SlashingInfo including SSZ encoding and Merkle tree root generation.

Poem

🐰 Amidst the code, a bunny leapt with glee,
Testing bits of data, under the blockchain tree.
From AttestationData to DenebPlus, checks abound,
Ensuring every hash and root is sound.
In the heart of consensus, strong and true,
This test suite dances, just like morning dew. 🌟


Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
    • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 0

Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between cc74677 and cb136b1.

Files selected for processing (3)
  • mod/consensus-types/pkg/types/attestation_data_test.go (1 hunks)
  • mod/consensus-types/pkg/types/body_denebplus_test.go (1 hunks)
  • mod/consensus-types/pkg/types/slashing_info_test.go (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (16)
mod/consensus-types/pkg/types/slashing_info_test.go (3)

31-36: LGTM!

The function generateSlashingInfo correctly generates a SlashingInfo instance with predefined values.


38-88: Well-structured test cases for marshaling and unmarshaling.

The test cases cover various scenarios, including valid data, empty data, and invalid buffer size. The use of the require package for assertions ensures clear and concise test validations.


91-103: Good validation of Merkle tree generation.

The test function validates the generation of a Merkle tree from SlashingInfo and compares the tree root with the expected root, ensuring the correctness of the tree generation.

mod/consensus-types/pkg/types/attestation_data_test.go (3)

31-40: LGTM!

The function generateAttestationData correctly generates an AttestationData instance with predefined values.


42-92: Well-structured test cases for marshaling and unmarshaling.

The test cases cover various scenarios, including valid data, empty data, and invalid buffer size. The use of the require package for assertions ensures clear and concise test validations.


97-109: Good validation of Merkle tree generation.

The test function validates the generation of a Merkle tree from AttestationData and compares the tree root with the expected root, ensuring the correctness of the tree generation.

mod/consensus-types/pkg/types/body_denebplus_test.go (10)

35-78: LGTM!

The function generateBeaconBlockBodyDenebPlus correctly generates a BeaconBlockBodyDenebPlus instance with predefined values.


80-156: Well-structured test cases for marshaling and unmarshaling.

The test cases cover various scenarios, including valid data, empty data, and invalid buffer size. The use of the require package for assertions ensures clear and concise test validations.


161-174: Good validation of Merkle tree generation.

The test function validates the generation of a Merkle tree from BeaconBlockBodyDenebPlus and compares the tree root with the expected root, ensuring the correctness of the tree generation.


178-184: LGTM!

The test function validates the IsNil method of BeaconBlockBodyDenebPlus and covers both nil and non-nil instances.


186-191: LGTM!

The test function validates the GetExecutionPayload method of BeaconBlockBodyDenebPlus and ensures that the returned payload matches the expected value.


193-209: Good validation of SetExecutionData method.

The test function validates the SetExecutionData method of BeaconBlockBodyDenebPlus and covers both valid and invalid payloads, ensuring proper error handling.


211-217: LGTM!

The test function validates the GetBlobKzgCommitments method of BeaconBlockBodyDenebPlus and ensures that the returned commitments match the expected value.


219-223: LGTM!

The test function validates the SetBlobKzgCommitments method of BeaconBlockBodyDenebPlus and ensures that the commitments are set correctly.


226-232: Good validation of GetTopLevelRoots method.

The test function validates the GetTopLevelRoots method of BeaconBlockBodyDenebPlus and ensures that the returned roots match the expected length and value.


234-238: LGTM!

The test function validates the Length method of BeaconBlockBodyDenebPlus and ensures that the returned length matches the expected value.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 9, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 24.84%. Comparing base (cc74677) to head (cb136b1).

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1729      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   24.91%   24.84%   -0.08%     
==========================================
  Files         277      269       -8     
  Lines       11935    11847      -88     
  Branches       18        0      -18     
==========================================
- Hits         2974     2943      -31     
+ Misses       8841     8784      -57     
  Partials      120      120              

see 9 files with indirect coverage changes

@hoank101
Copy link
Contributor Author

hoank101 commented Jul 9, 2024

hey @codecov why does adding more tests result in lower coverage

Copy link
Contributor

@itsdevbear itsdevbear left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

eh why not

@itsdevbear itsdevbear merged commit 48489ce into berachain:main Jul 9, 2024
15 checks passed
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.

3 participants