test(v1.x): expand apphash test with all state machine msgs

[ninabarbakadze]

Overview

Consistent Apphash test on v1

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

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 Configuration 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.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 64 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 18.52%. Comparing base (91b6827) to head (6edf42f).
Report is 23 commits behind head on v1.x.

Files	Patch %	Lines
test/util/test_app.go	0.00%	37 Missing ⚠️
test/util/testfactory/common.go	0.00%	20 Missing ⚠️
test/util/genesis/modifier.go	0.00%	7 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             v1.x    #3665      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   16.61%   18.52%   +1.90%     
==========================================
  Files         179      189      +10     
  Lines       19788    20859    +1071     
==========================================
+ Hits         3288     3864     +576     
- Misses      16189    16657     +468     
- Partials      311      338      +27     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[evan-forbes]

doesn't have to be changed here, but I still think that pursuing a table driven approach is best here, even if that means we have to add some functionality in testapp

the main reasons were similar to what we've discussed before, just that adding things to table driven tests is intuitive and we can isolate msgs. atm this test can break and we don't immediately know which module changed its state machine in a breaking way

we also don't have the ability to change the app version, which presumably is something else that we would need if we want to make it easy on ourselves in the future when we expand these tests

[ninabarbakadze]

doesn't have to be changed here, but I still think that pursuing a table driven approach is best here, even if that means we have to add some functionality in testapp

the main reasons were similar to what we've discussed before, just that adding things to table driven tests is intuitive and we can isolate msgs. atm this test can break and we don't immediately know which module changed its state machine in a breaking way

we also don't have the ability to change the app version, which presumably is something else that we would need if we want to make it easy on ourselves in the future when we expand these tests

I'd say that I can revisit this when i have to write consistent apphash test for v2. We can then figure out how we want different versions to be tested + the structure. Then I'd also refactor this to the table driven approach. Updated the AC on the v2 testing issue: #3624

Although the way i see this test breaking mostly is by application producing a different hash to what's expected because we accidentally made an apphash breaking change to the state machine.